What happened to the people who start up their own next big thing whether it be an app, game, website or DAC in their spare time? If you have a great idea and the skill-set to do it, just go for it and pick up some funding along the way or when it's ready for launch to pay lawyers or a marketing team. You'll be your own investor, paying with time.

Here, every time you wonder "Why wouldn't someone just do it for free, when they're not working at their paying job, and then give away 20% of the money supply for nothing" just think of this

WHY WOULD THEY?

Quote from: barwizi on March 06, 2014, 04:12:48 pm

agreement with who?

You're making this point in several threads. Of course you are free to not participate in the contract/agreement.
It seems like you are just also surprised that this causes other people to not want to support your venture. You don't do your part, the counterparty doesn't do their part.

"We don't need you! Why are we being shunned?"

Toast:  Why would anyone want to honor the invictus social contract for 10/10 as it currently exists now.    Put yourself in the shoes of a developer deciding between this, ethereum or another platform, or building your own by forking one of the many options out there including Bitshares as soon as it releases but selling the 100% of tokens to people at a lower rate than the market price for BTS and keeping the money for your project.

What has Invictus done to demonstrate the value of giving 20% of a new money supply to AGS/PTS holders

Quote from: fishseeds on March 06, 2014, 10:00:26 am

Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 03, 2014, 05:44:36 am

Maybe it's time to do a proof of burn into a proto-asset that actually trades on the first Bitshares chain.  Seems miners don't understand why they'd want to keep mining now that Bitshares has split off.

i stopped ming right after the snapshot. The diff increase the week before cut 2 grand on hardware in half. in 2 more weeks, it drops in half again. This will be impossible for anyone who doesn't have free power. PTS will die because of this massive diff increases. The snapshot and fork made things worse than they should have been. People were not anticipating the diff increase to be so severe. If 2600cpm gave you 1 pts a day a few weeks ago, diff increase the other week cut that that around .3 pts. Next diff increase puts you at .15. Fuck man, it is like they are trying to force people away from PTS. Which i guess makes sense but it wasn't something that was talked about. Now having all this PTS is purely a hope that BTS turns into something worthwhile, and essentially the massive price drop made all the work of mining completely worthless. If you can by a PTS share for 5-6 dollars on the 1st of march, you miss the very first fork but have BTS in everything else once you buy, you basically say "fuck you miners, you got us started and now we are ditching you." I am kind of irritated, i guess i should have been smart enough to understand that concept way before i started mining, but there were so many changes leading up the the snap shot it is just ridiculous. Now, everyone who didn't mine was able to buy massive stake in PTS to gain BTS for all the next DACs that come out. It is not like the bingo and music dacs are going to be something amazing and make any investment worth it.... It is a slap in the face, anyone who mined should have sold at $20, right when the snapshot was announced.

Well, yeah.   I had roughly 15 that I was able to sell on Cryptsy, but the other 80 got stuck on beedui.com when they decided to freeze the wallet at 20:00 local time, which I assume is because they had nfc as to when this was actually taking place, otherwise shutting off trading and withdrawing 15 hrs early makes no sense (err, well, unless you plan on taking everyone's stuff and closing the exchange).   I transferred them to beedui since there was a bid in place that was approx. 15% higher than what PTS was selling for on cryptsy.  By the time it got there (confirmations were slow), the bid was gone.  I decided to put an ask up and wait a bit and see if anyone would bite... after about an hr, I decided it was too risky to wait any longer and that's when I noticed that I could no longer withdraw my PTS.  LOL.

A lot of people here seem rather blasé about the whole situation.  Alas, I'm not loaded with money, so the $1,000 I lost actually has meaning.  There is no way in hell that those Bitshares are going to make up for what I lost... and I don't want to hear the crap about how "miners" should be informed.   The exchanges, including Cryptsy, didn't even know wtf was going on....... I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the people on this forum didn't, either.  I was planning on selling on the 27th, but I figured there might be a last second rush on the 28th from the ignorant and/or uninformed, so I held longer.  However, I still would have sold at a minimum of .023 on Cryptsy, which is a hell of a lot better than .009 or whatever it's at now.

... and, pls, none of the BS about how PTS wasn't meant to be a currency or w/e.  I ran a PTS node for 5 months, I ran a memorycoin node for a couple months, I've been posting on these forums for months.  The indifference & cavalier attitudes on display here by the ""people in the know"" sure as hell doesn't inspire me going forward.  You bet as soon as I'm able to sell those PTS that I'll do so, even if they're at .005.

They don't care.  Saying you want to sell your PTS means you're just a "non-believer".     Remember, mining was only the thing they asked everyone to do at the beginning of this process, once they realized they wanted to change the deal they got permission from four or five random community members who hang out on the forum and made the necessary changes.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 05:04:46 am

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration.  Perhaps we can do both.

Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward.  Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.

We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed.  Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal.  If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development. 

In the end, I guess it comes down to a choice of which end of the rainbow we should put the pot of gold.

 

And then there's the buzz and excitement of a contest that pays off in July, right in front of a studio audience that has just been trained in how to evaluate and create good DACs.  A chance to apply what they have learned and see how others have approached the problem the day after they take the class.

We are looking to kill many birds with each stone.  Its all part of an integrated push by every member of our team in every department and has built in community involvement at every stage. 

Not only that, but even the "losers" win, because they will become well known in the process and may get help from other attending investors.  Those who watch talent search shows know that most of the finalists get a big career boost from a public competition with judges and instant gratification.

Of course all of this hinges on whether there are enough simultaneously-appearing quality contestants to make the concept work. 

Also, if there's an obviously qualified developer ready to go with a great DAC idea, do we really want to make her wait until July?  That's a lifetime in this industry.  So the competition idea is really a wild-card second-chance opportunity for candidates that don't get funded on the spot.

There is much to ponder and as we said in the newsletter, we welcome civil comments and want to hear if there are actually any interested contestants for either of the approaches on the table.

If you want to compete for a post-development demonstrated-success prize, let us know.
If you want to compete for a pre-development demonstrated-potential stipend, let us know.

When I get time over the next few days I'll lay out how I feel 25-50% of AGS funds received so far should be committed to long term bounties.   I also feel the keys need to not be reliant on Invictus to manage for the full amount of funds, it's too much trust centered on a company that has unproven and provocative legal footing.  I would suggest a large community M of N, and I would be happy to serve as a key holder.

I have no problem with you doing the shark tank thing, spectacle is fine.   We have a problem if it is shark tank to the exclusion of long term, large, and predictable bounties as I've been describing.  I look forward to your feedback on the proposal, I intend to make it very general with the intention of incentivizing as much innovation and experimentation as possible to center of the Invictus platform rather than choosing another.   People who want up front development funds can go through the Invictus shark tank process.

Also, with regards to your "send us comments", you realize you're publishing that on page 3 or 4 of a unrelated thread on the invictus development forum?   The people you want to incentivize aren't here.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 02:29:11 am

Quote

Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?

I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement.  I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material.

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.   You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.   Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!   So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................

Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed.   

Quote

insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

I'm crazy, but I'm not insane.  Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal.  I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.

You will find the requested response here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039

We think about this stuff 24x7.  We are balancing many Global Optimization Factors.  This means that every single factor will be sub-optimum so that the Global Whole will be the best we can make it. You specialize in pointing out how individual factors are sub-optimum.  I'm a system's engineer and program manager with 38 years of experience who has published a detailed summary of our optimization criteria and strategy for achieving a globally optimum solution here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

I begin to despair when I see quotes like the following.  Each statement is obviously unfair and blatantly false.  How can I say anything more that we haven't already explained?  But I'll try once again...

Quote

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   

No.  As we explained in "Watch for Falling PTS" the price changed because the value was split between two chains that will now grow and divide again and again.  I offered a comprehensive "Shark Tank" plan for incentivizing other DAC developers as the Featured Article in our February newsletter as highlighted and explained here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039  Incentivizing and training DAC developers is the whole point of our Beyond Bitcoin Summit in July.

Why is it only possible for one dac to be in development on the chain at a time?  As I've described, you can set up clear incentives to get other companies to participate and build in your ecosystem instead of choosing a competing one or starting their own.  The lack of activity in this sector and the failure to explain the value to Memorycoin (your own contractor) and Barwizi (who wrote much of your social contracts and himself did not see the value) is why there are no other DACs announced in development for Protoshares, and it's the reason why there appears to be no reason for the market to hold.    You're saying it doesn't matter and I agree with you in the long term, but it's also completely unnneccesary AND a demonstration that you have so far failed to attract development talent that has been very interested in working with you.   It's great you have a conference in summer, I hope Let's Talk Bitcoin! will be a part of it, but you are holding development of your ecosystem hostage on these arbitrary future dates.    Do you not agree that setting up outcome based bounties would give non-invictus teams an incentive to start long term projects.  That is not true about some future shark tank panel that happens at a conference that some fraction of the potentially interested people attend.     

Quote

What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.

Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community.  Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong.  We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet.   

Quote

You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.

We plan to fund the best DACs we can find.  We have announced a half dozen that are at the top of our list.  We will not insert a lesser DAC in front of the line, but a better 3rd Party idea will be placed there immediately.  The only reason they are not executing yet is the lack of a qualified proposal to develop one of them or qualified staff to do it internally.  Again, the whole point of the Shark Tank contest and the Beyond Bitcoin Summit is to recruit developers.

Daniel has said that only Music is even on the table for 2014 and realistically 2015.  Why do you want to pay people for work they haven't done?  A bounty program, properly promoted solves your problems without Invictus needing to be right about everything.  To this point you guys have been wrong about more things than you've been right about so I'm a little unclear why you think there is this aura of trust going on here.  There isn't. 

Quote

Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!

No, we are operating in the role of an honest broker community-building "foundation" until the formal legal structures can be set up to make that role explicit.  The portion you refer to goes to developing the community, not Invictus.  We merely offered to manage those funds for the community.  We encourage other people to make similar offers and compete with us for that position of trust.

I believe the community should represent the community, and invictus should propose non-standard or new expenditures.  You guys break the rules whenever you want, so you shouldn't be in charge of the rules for so much value intended to build this ecosystem. 

Quote

So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system.

We have always said we are bootstrapping a community.  Our books are open to the point where we get asked about individual expenditures every day.  That's the best accountability we know how to do. Those tokens are being recirculated into the community to fund development and marketing.  As to whether the industry thinks the incentives to contribute to building the industry are "perverse" or not, people have been voting for them with real money for 65 days, have they not?

5 year Bounty program.   Seriously.  You can do your shark tank thing too but asking everyone to go through you in some sort of gameshow esque vetting process means you'll only get people who are willing to make a spectacle of themselves and have the possibility of public rejection.  Not everybody wants to open the kimono before they've built the thing, you ask them to bear their soul or receive no reward at all.   Set up the roadmap you think things should go or the community can do this, but really this is where Daniels long term vision would be useful rather than judging individual business models.   You guys have been bad caretakers of investor trust, outcome based bounties preferably with keys controlled by the community would be a good way to restore it.   

Don't give up Stan, you've made like ten posts to me and I've made dozens and dozens to you.  If anyone should give up it's me, but I'm still here.  Why?  Because I like you.  You guys have a good idea, and I hate seeing smart people do things like this.

Also, announcing it in the Newsletter is not what you do if you want people to actually know about it.  How big exactly do you think this community is? 

Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?

I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement.  I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material.

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.   You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.   Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!   So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................

Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed.   

insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

I'm crazy, but I'm not insane.  Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal.  I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.

Toast:
You're correct, I looked at Invictus products early for this, and my early documents lay out a scenario where 20% of LTBcoins created (which will be the only way to buy advertising time on the LTB network) were given to PTS/AGS holders, but in my later conversations with Daniel he suggested we use another platform.

The choice is between Mastercoin and Counterparty.   Mastercoin has more resources and I know the team well, but they have lots of baggage.  Counterparty has a bunch of legitimacy and has been much faster/cleaner with development, but they cannot help make LTBcoin happen besides giving me the same tools as are available to everyone else.  That's important because this stuff is still hard, in six months it won't be but right now it still is.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 05, 2014, 04:31:39 pm

Quote from: toast on March 05, 2014, 04:24:01 pm

Quote from: bitbro on March 05, 2014, 04:09:10 pm

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the  code for taking genesis block snapshots.

People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.

There are two bounty proposals up right now waiting for any response from invictus.   And apparently the independent implementations weren't good enough for Barwizi, who is a developer himself and who fulfilled many bounties in the PTS ecosystem but who could not figure out how to honor PTS holders.  Also notice AGS holders were completely ignored.   

Most people aren't advertising the fact that they ask for money, they want to make sure it happens before they talk about it otherwise not getting it looks like you tried and failed, which implies you might not be worth other people funding.

So you're not going to see this happen in public, but look around - How many new development teams have jumped onboard creating DACs with Invictus?  The forums are an echo chamber, I can't even tell you how many conversations I've had with people who want to know if I'm still following invictus because they want to jump.

I wouldn't take it that far - I3 still offers enough internal development to hold PTS at ~$6 after the Bts dividend, which is based mostly on the fact that i3 will produce new DACs on their own - much less because of potential 3rd party initiatives.  Anyone of these potential jumpers must see it differently



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTS

The price decline has been because people see nothing on the horizon that would do the same, so instead of this being the first in a successful cascade of launches, it's the air being let out of the balloon. 

If this is an ecosystem, it needs multiple development teams working towards the same broad goals, going about it in their unique ways.   If this is a crowdfunded monopoly we're doing great.