I am undecided please convince me of either way.Totally agree 1 is better than 0,0001 etc.
+ More BitShares X easier invest. Instead of buying 0.00001, you can buy 1 and it can be seen a less risky option. (DogeCoin)
+ Less BitShares X increases value due the limited amount and speculation. (Bitcoin)
+ Both are limited regardless.
+ With More BitShares X 1 = 1$ you can mentally calculate investment or trades in assets.
I don't know what would be best, but 4 million was the original plan.yea, I think BTS is still 4 million, but we should use the 1 billion bips as unit for trade.
I have an idea... we take the top 10 or 20 coins with the largest market cap (because they are for a reason the best) and we calculate the average coins they have and we pick a number near this average...good idea +5%
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
I am undecided please convince me of either way.
+ More BitShares X easier invest. Instead of buying 0.00001, you can buy 1 and it can be seen a less risky option. (DogeCoin)
+ Less BitShares X increases value due the limited amount and speculation. (Bitcoin)
+ Both are limited regardless.
+ With More BitShares X 1 = 1$ you can mentally calculate investment or trades in assets.
I vote for 4 mio XT as originally proposed .. and maybe 400mio bitsharesX at launch!
I vote this as one of the top 3 most useless topics ever! (15 post in the topic min.)
Here is a true story (If you do not believe it I would not blame you cause I believe the story only because I know the guy; let’s cam him Tim)
So Tim is answering the phone at a pizza place:
Lady customer: “ I am having a party, I would like to know how many people one large pizza feeds?”
Tim: “ 3 to 4.”
Lady customer: “How about if you cut the pizza in squares?”
I vote this as one of the top 3 most useless topics ever! (15 post in the topic min.)
Here is a true story (If you do not believe it I would not blame you cause I believe the story only because I know the guy; let’s cam him Tim)
So Tim is answering the phone at a pizza place:
Lady customer: “ I am having a party, I would like to know how many people one large pizza feeds?”
Tim: “ 3 to 4.”
Lady customer: “How about if you cut the pizza in squares?”
Maybe Bitshares X would someday be successful and get to $10, $50, $100+ price range, but trying to start at that level at launch with only 4 million shares is not a smart move.
I vote for somewhere in the range of 100 million to 1 billion shares of X at launch.
Initial Share Supply 200,000,000.000000
Maximum Share Supply 1,000,000,000.000000
First Year Delegate Pay: 160,000,000.000000 (~1,600,000 per delegate on average (0.44%))
End First Year Total Supply 360,000,000.000000
Second Year Delegate Pay: 128,000,000.000000 (~1,280,000 per delegate on average (0.26%))
End Second Year Total Supply 488,000,000.000000
The goal is to expand the role of delegates and give the shareholders the power to select the dilution rate by electing delegates that will return their surplus pay to the shareholders.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
The goal is to expand the role of delegates and give the shareholders the power to select the dilution rate by electing delegates that will return their surplus pay to the shareholders.hello BM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
The goal is to expand the role of delegates and give the shareholders the power to select the dilution rate by electing delegates that will return their surplus pay to the shareholders.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
under Targeted Growth model , i feel you try to treat delegates as miners from pow coins but allocating 80% to miners is not fair to AGS/PTS investors. I would suggest to lower the % to 20-40% for miners in the next 10 years
First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.Hi
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
According to 3i statements, ags and pts investers will get 50/50 shares to bts x chain with no dilution . Any change need to get consensus from our community+5% +5% +5%First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
According to 3i statements, ags and pts investers will get 50/50 shares to bts x chain with no dilution . Any change need to get consensus from our community+5% +5% +5%First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
What do you mean by future chains? a other DAC besides BTS X or you mean the future chains of BTS X?
I don't care about exact total numbers, but dilution is not fair for early investers (which is us) as this is not in the open statement when we bought PTS/donate AGS before 228.
Toast, which chain is the future chain you refer to? Final btsx chain?
Among those voting for only 4 million shares, can someone please explain your reasoning? What's the advantage in having so few shares? Frankly, I can't see any advantage, but would like to know your pov. ???People associate higher prices with success. Having less shares equals higher prices which can generate more media attention.
According to 3i statements, ags and pts investers will get 50/50 shares to bts x chain with no dilution . Any change need to get consensus from our community+5% +5% +5%First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
What do you mean by future chains? a other DAC besides BTS X or you mean the future chains of BTS X?
I don't care about exact total numbers, but dilution is not fair for early investers (which is us) as this is not in the open statement when we bought PTS/donate AGS before 228.
Among those voting for only 4 million shares, can someone please explain your reasoning? What's the advantage in having so few shares? Frankly, I can't see any advantage, but would like to know your pov. ???People associate higher prices with success. Having less shares equals higher prices which can generate more media attention.
The reason to have a lot of shares at a low price is if you want more volume on a chain. There is a balance but because there can be many chains I don't see a reason to go with 1 billion shares. Something between 4 and 8 million shares makes sense because by the time it starts to get too expensive for most people there will be multiple chains anyway.
So it's really about how you want to be perceived and the potential for market cap. If we think the market cap could be in the trillions then having 100 billion or even 1 trillion shares would make sense. But I doubt any single chain would reach that point and the result is the shares will likely look like a penny stock and be laughed at by people with significant resources.
Honestly for something like this there is room for experimentation. Whatever the community decides for one chain can be changed up in future chains if the market doesn't respond well.
I am undecided please convince me of either way.
+ More BitShares X easier invest. Instead of buying 0.00001, you can buy 1 and it can be seen a less risky option. (DogeCoin)
+ Less BitShares X increases value due the limited amount and speculation. (Bitcoin)
+ Both are limited regardless.
+ With More BitShares X 1 = 1$ you can mentally calculate investment or trades in assets.
Toast, which chain is the future chain you refer to? Final btsx chain?
There will be *many* X chains. At least one of them will have 50/50 without dilution.
I think before you bring the profit for early investors , you have no reason to cut down the shares you promised. we have been waiting for 6 months and get nothing, I have lost my patience. now, this make me lose heart with 3I.+5%!!!!!!!!!!!!!! iii you damn evil!we have wait for 6 months!
Toast, which chain is the future chain you refer to? Final btsx chain?
There will be *many* X chains. At least one of them will have 50/50 without dilution.
what is this suppose to mean? We need a clear and official clarification of this.
Toast, which chain is the future chain you refer to? Final btsx chain?
There will be *many* X chains. At least one of them will have 50/50 without dilution.
what is this suppose to mean? We need a clear and official clarification of this.
Does this stickied topic help?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2940.0
If our goal is to see the value of BitShares XT to grow then we need to future-proof peoples investment in BitShares XT after launch against being devalued by one of our planned upgrades or the flood of variants with different assets. For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch. Thus the primary vehicle for investing in future BitShares X chains will be to own BitShares XT.... likewise, chains that are variants of BitShares XI or XV should honor their parent with 100% stake.
For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
Thanks for the quote on what I was recommending at the time. As I am merely making recommendations I am free to express opinions and allow those opinions to change as a result of debate and discussion.+5%, for find the best way.
I have a duty to the truth first and foremost and I will always try to express that truth to the best of my understanding. So what would you have me do at this point:
1) Refuse to acknowledge past mistakes and continue to recommend something I think is against shareholder interest
2) State what I believe is a better approach while still recognizing that many individuals were betting on the original approach.
I prefer to let the market sort things out (and it will).
So I strongly support giving everyone exactly what the originally expected and I strongly recommend that people adopt an improved model.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
Shall I point you to the original whitepaper from fall 2013 which describes this as a multi-chain project? That's the point, there is not one chain. The network effect is in the bitassets.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
Shall I point you to the original whitepaper from fall 2013 which describes this as a multi-chain project? That's the point, there is not one chain. The network effect is in the bitassets.
Toast, which chain is the future chain you refer to? Final btsx chain?
There will be *many* X chains. At least one of them will have 50/50 without dilution.
what is this suppose to mean? We need a clear and official clarification of this.
Does this stickied topic help?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2940.0
that topic is exactly what I believe it should be. see the fourth paragraph:QuoteIf our goal is to see the value of BitShares XT to grow then we need to future-proof peoples investment in BitShares XT after launch against being devalued by one of our planned upgrades or the flood of variants with different assets. For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch. Thus the primary vehicle for investing in future BitShares X chains will be to own BitShares XT.... likewise, chains that are variants of BitShares XI or XV should honor their parent with 100% stake.
if they are all 100%, how come "At least one of them will have 50/50 without dilution."
but I haven't got it, why give 80% to delegate is better than now.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!What I would really like to see is this:QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.
The challenges with this approach is:
1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates
Thanks for your reply.Quotebut I haven't got it, why give 80% to delegate is better than now.
This probably deserves its own thread and is often discussed in the Mumble Hangouts (please show up and join the discussion).
The goal is not to give it to the delegates for simply producing blocks. The goal is to make it the DAC flexible enough at the protocol level to adjust its resource allocation strategy dynamically and fairly according to shareholder wishes. Shareholders select delegates. Delegates are highly paid and thus there is competition for this role.
As delegates compete they make campaign promises such as:
1) I will fund development of a web wallet with Developers X, Y and Z
2) I will fund a faucet
3) I will return money to the shareholders
4) I will pay to lobby the government
5) I will buy a superbowl ad.
The shareholders can then decide what mix of delegates / resource allocation they desire.
So the alternative of hardcoding minimal rewards (a fraction of TRX fees) for delegates is effectively making the decision to rely upon voluntary investment in infrastructure. View this like a company and ask how much would a normal company spend to grow to be worth 100 Billion? How much has this community put into the DAC to boot strap it? Several million dollars. To think that several million dollars is enough to take it to 100 Billion is very wishful thinking.
In any case, the shareholders get what they want and the success of the DAC is entirely on their shoulders.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!What I would really like to see is this:QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.
The challenges with this approach is:
1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates
You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.
"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?
To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."
If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.
Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!What I would really like to see is this:QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.
The challenges with this approach is:
1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates
You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.
"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?
To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."
If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.
Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.
I am a little confused.
Here are my understanding as follows:
In BTS X (including XT or XV version), PTS\AGS holders will have 50%\50%
While in future DACs like music, lotto, ME etc., PTS\AGS holders will have 10%\10%, and use the allocation plan BM just mentioned yesterday.
Am I right?
Quotebut I haven't got it, why give 80% to delegate is better than now.
This probably deserves its own thread and is often discussed in the Mumble Hangouts
So the alternative of hardcoding minimal rewards (a fraction of TRX fees) for delegates is effectively making the decision to rely upon voluntary investment in infrastructure. View this like a company and ask how much would a normal company spend to grow to be worth 100 Billion? How much has this community put into the DAC to boot strap it? Several million dollars. To think that several million dollars is enough to take it to 100 Billion is very wishful thinking.
In any case, the shareholders get what they want and the success of the DAC is entirely on their shoulders.
I am a little confused.
Here are my understanding as follows:
In BTS X (including XT or XV version), PTS\AGS holders will have 50%\50%
While in future DACs like music, lotto, ME etc., PTS\AGS holders will have 10%\10%, and use the allocation plan BM just mentioned yesterday.
Am I right?It is the responsibility of every DAC developer/operator to make those decisions
in competition with others who will try to make better decisions.
To get our support (and presumably your support) they must honor the 10% minimums.
To get our recommendation, a DAC must be most competitive and of greatest benefit to PTS/AGS holders (like ourselves) in the long run.But the market will decide.
I am a little confused.
Here are my understanding as follows:
In BTS X (including XT or XV version), PTS\AGS holders will have 50%\50%
While in future DACs like music, lotto, ME etc., PTS\AGS holders will have 10%\10%, and use the allocation plan BM just mentioned yesterday.
Am I right?It is the responsibility of every DAC developer/operator to make those decisions
in competition with others who will try to make better decisions.
To get our support (and presumably your support) they must honor the 10% minimums.
To get our recommendation, a DAC must be most competitive and of greatest benefit to PTS/AGS holders (like ourselves) in the long run.But the market will decide.
Stan, I am still confused.
Did you mean that AGS\PTS holders could only get 10%\10% when BTS XV or XC are released?
I am worry about this topic now.
It's not a correct time to debate this.
back to the dryrun test please.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!What I would really like to see is this:QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.
The challenges with this approach is:
1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates
You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.
"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?
To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."
If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.
Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.
Which is better?
1. Use mining to gradually release the last 80% of shares along some front-loaded curve that burns all the money people are willing to pay for those shares.
2. Have a developer keep the last 80% of shares to be spent along some front-loaded curve as the developer thinks is best to achieve success..
3. Have the last 80% put in 101 spigots that dispense along some front-loaded curve as 101 elected delegates campaign and shareholders vote to get control of one of the spigots.
4. Release all the shares up front leaving no operating budget and hope that someone will donate to maintain and grow the assets.
You don't have to choose. All four are likely to be tried at some point. Your task is to pick the winner(s).
I am a little confused.
Here are my understanding as follows:
In BTS X (including XT or XV version), PTS\AGS holders will have 50%\50%
While in future DACs like music, lotto, ME etc., PTS\AGS holders will have 10%\10%, and use the allocation plan BM just mentioned yesterday.
Am I right?It is the responsibility of every DAC developer/operator to make those decisions
in competition with others who will try to make better decisions.
To get our support (and presumably your support) they must honor the 10% minimums.
To get our recommendation, a DAC must be most competitive and of greatest benefit to PTS/AGS holders (like ourselves) in the long run.But the market will decide.
Stan, I am still confused.
Did you mean that AGS\PTS holders could only get 10%\10% when BTS XV or XC are released?
You will undoubtedly wind up owning several variants as several operators offer their own optimized clones. Whether the first full-featured 50/50 PTS/AGS chain beats some other competitor that allocates 10/10 and makes smarter use of the remaining 80% remains to be seen.
You will own shares in all of them so presumably the one the market likes best will make you the most money, regardless of the initial percentages. Keep them all or sell the ones you don't think will succeed.
Never before have investors had the chance to own ALL the competing options for the price of one. How's that for hedging your bets?
:)
I am worry about this topic now.+5%
It's not a correct time to debate this.
back to the dryrun test please.
another one BTS2 AGS holders 10% PTS holders 10% delegate 80%
So there will be two chains? BTS1 AGS holders 50% PTS holders 50%
another one BTS2 AGS holders 10% PTS holders 10% delegate 80%
or maybe more? BTS 3\4\5\6………………………………
I feel quite doubtful about the whole thing, and I cannot see any promising future about the whole thing
First of all, with so many chains, if there is someone who wants to buy BTS, which one should he buy? he will be confused and he will be not sure which one to buy and will not want to buy because he will be not sure which one will be the final version.
second, before, all the people thought AGS\PTS would get 50%\50%, so they made the investment, but now they were told they might only get 10% or 10%? plus, if you said you would let the market decide, the fact woule be that, if PTS AGS holders only get 10% instead of 50%, the other people could get the rest 80%, of course people would like this plan. it is just like if the people who originally have a lot of money now have to spare their money to the poor people. of course this plan would be more welcome by the people, because poor people are much more.
sorry for my words, i am just very very XX right now.
We all know the drawbacks to mining-based approaches. But consider the drawbacks to front-loading 101 spigots at the scale of what I think you're envisioning. Just imagine the costly rent-seeking activities. influence costs, the wasteful campaigns that 100s delegates would run. Millions of dollars wasted by hundreds of people on campaigning and rent-seeking. Imagine the scams and frauds that a few bad apples would try to perpetrate, the disagreements and fights about broken promises, the lawsuits about privacy, libel, and such. Imagine all of that drama that DAC developers and the community would have to experience. Now multiply that by 10, 20, 30 DACs. Do you see the problem with this governance scheme? It would likely be a nightmare that would give Bitshares a black eye or two. Why endorse this type of system upfront?
Maybe in the future there would be a specialized DAC that really needs this type of funding model to raise 100s of millions of dollars for development or marketing by wasting 10s of millions on campaign spending. But that should be really up to the DAC developer. Why hardwire this problematic governance into the prototype DAC upfront?
+5% +5% +5% +5%
agree with you . BM 's front-loading 101 spigots is trying to bring all the pow wasteful campaign and evils to POS world.
We all know the drawbacks to mining-based approaches. But consider the drawbacks to front-loading 101 spigots at the scale of what I think you're envisioning. Just imagine the costly rent-seeking activities. influence costs, the wasteful campaigns that 100s delegates would run. Millions of dollars wasted by hundreds of people on campaigning and rent-seeking. Imagine the scams and frauds that a few bad apples would try to perpetrate, the disagreements and fights about broken promises, the lawsuits about privacy, libel, and such. Imagine all of that drama that DAC developers and the community would have to experience. Now multiply that by 10, 20, 30 DACs. Do you see the problem with this governance scheme? It would likely be a nightmare that would give Bitshares a black eye or two. Why endorse this type of system upfront?
Maybe in the future there would be a specialized DAC that really needs this type of funding model to raise 100s of millions of dollars for development or marketing by wasting 10s of millions on campaign spending. But that should be really up to the DAC developer. Why hardwire this problematic governance into the prototype DAC upfront?
Agreed. This debated happened a bit too early. It is just wrong for doing the right things at wrong time.I am worry about this topic now.+5%
It's not a correct time to debate this.
back to the dryrun test please.
Let's work out the first chain then back to this discussion.. Debate this now is just waste time and resource for the first chain development, as we all agree that there will be no change on the distribution approach of first chain.
I agree with the premise that voting is bad governance (I have long been on the record about that). And there would certainly be a lot of waist.
I agree with the premise that voting is bad governance (I have long been on the record about that). And there would certainly be a lot of waist.
+5%
The issue I have with dilution is that what makes voting reasonable for picking delegates in the first place is that they can do virtually no harm anyway. Dilution effectively gives the delegates (with 50%+ support) basically total power to do whatever they want in the DAC through redistribution.
BM, please make bts as simple as possible. If the price of xts down to 1 or 2 dollar when released because it too complex to understant, everyone may lose confidence. then no one would trust 3I again because even the early investors could not get their rewards. This is choice of market.Agreed. This debated happened a bit too early. It is just wrong for doing the right things at wrong time.I am worry about this topic now.+5%
It's not a correct time to debate this.
back to the dryrun test please.
Let's work out the first chain then back to this discussion.. Debate this now is just waste time and resource for the first chain development, as we all agree that there will be no change on the distribution approach of first chain.
With that being said, things are getting too complicated. It's too much stuff to digest for someone single-minded like me. To grow the community, we gotta to keep it simple. Bitcoin is not perfect, but it's simple enough.
Simple is effective.
99.99% of us are not as smart as BM is. So, be considerate to us.
Hi, Daniel.
Could you please at least get the most basic stuffs (wallets, DPOS) done before you try to suck the very last bit of value of your investors (again)?
Also, for the love of God, please open a new thread before you intend to change anything that's in violation of the original consensus.
I worry about if delegate campaign with returning money to the shareholders ,it will decrease the stability and robustness of network of DAC , if shareholders voting delegate just because this can supply better network service ( include produce block chain, less network timeout and honesty ) ,then the delegate supply better service have high voting .Quotebut I haven't got it, why give 80% to delegate is better than now.
This probably deserves its own thread and is often discussed in the Mumble Hangouts (please show up and join the discussion).
The goal is not to give it to the delegates for simply producing blocks. The goal is to make it the DAC flexible enough at the protocol level to adjust its resource allocation strategy dynamically and fairly according to shareholder wishes. Shareholders select delegates. Delegates are highly paid and thus there is competition for this role.
As delegates compete they make campaign promises such as:
1) I will fund development of a web wallet with Developers X, Y and Z
2) I will fund a faucet
3) I will return money to the shareholders
4) I will pay to lobby the government
5) I will buy a superbowl ad.
The shareholders can then decide what mix of delegates / resource allocation they desire.
So the alternative of hardcoding minimal rewards (a fraction of TRX fees) for delegates is effectively making the decision to rely upon voluntary investment in infrastructure. View this like a company and ask how much would a normal company spend to grow to be worth 100 Billion? How much has this community put into the DAC to boot strap it? Several million dollars. To think that several million dollars is enough to take it to 100 Billion is very wishful thinking.
In any case, the shareholders get what they want and the success of the DAC is entirely on their shoulders.
One thing all of this *discussion* has exposed is that politics and voting is a fundamental violation of property rights.I have absolutely no idea how you can conclude 1)2)3) from this discussion. Maybe it's just that I'm not a good master of byte as you.
1) Running a company by committee is a bad idea.
2) 99% of voters have no clue as to what is actually in their best interest.
3) It becomes a prisoners dilemma... if everyone cooperates it could work well, but individuals can profit more by defecting.
Conclusion:
It is entirely too risky to consider such a significant shift in premise. The free-market way to achieve the desired goal is to for someone to launch a new chain, pre-allocating enough to themselves to justify the investment and then growing to compete in the market place.
One thing all of this *discussion* has exposed is that politics and voting is a fundamental violation of property rights.I have absolutely no idea how you can conclude 1)2)3) from this discussion. Maybe it's just that I'm not a good master of byte as you.
1) Running a company by committee is a bad idea.
2) 99% of voters have no clue as to what is actually in their best interest.
3) It becomes a prisoners dilemma... if everyone cooperates it could work well, but individuals can profit more by defecting.
Conclusion:
It is entirely too risky to consider such a significant shift in premise. The free-market way to achieve the desired goal is to for someone to launch a new chain, pre-allocating enough to themselves to justify the investment and then growing to compete in the market place.
+5%Quoteanother one BTS2 AGS holders 10% PTS holders 10% delegate 80%
First of all... AGS/PTS holders start out with 100% and can nominate delegates that destroy 100% of their surplus pay and thus is potentially no different than the 50/50 approach.
Second... the 10/10/80 is more like 30/30/40 for the first year *IF* the delegates that are elected decide to spend (invest in growth or keep)
So what we are suggesting is that there could be no dilution if the shareholders don't want dilution. Assuming it is guaranteed when the current shareholders are in control of who they vote for is just wrong.
So it seems like if 60% of AGS/PTS holders want the dilution approach then that is the approach that should be used. The other 40% are free to "sell" and start their own chain.
So in all reality it is probably best to let the shareholders vote rather than have us decide unilaterally.
So there will be two chains? BTS1 AGS holders 50% PTS holders 50%
another one BTS2 AGS holders 10% PTS holders 10% delegate 80%
or maybe more? BTS 3\4\5\6………………………………
I feel quite doubtful about the whole thing, and I cannot see any promising future about the whole thing
First of all, with so many chains, if there is someone who wants to buy BTS, which one should he buy? he will be confused and he will be not sure which one to buy and will not want to buy because he will be not sure which one will be the final version.
second, before, all the people thought AGS\PTS would get 50%\50%, so they made the investment, but now they were told they might only get 10% or 10%? plus, if you said you would let the market decide, the fact woule be that, if PTS AGS holders only get 10% instead of 50%, the other people could get the rest 80%, of course people would like this plan. it is just like if the people who originally have a lot of money now have to spare their money to the poor people. of course this plan would be more welcome by the people, because poor people are much more.
sorry for my words, i am just very very XX right now.
The key point you are missing is that we do not control what variants others will make. Neither does Bitcoin.
What is different here, is you get ownership in all the honorable variations. You win if any one of them wins. Maybe more than one will be successful.
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!What I would really like to see is this:QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.
The challenges with this approach is:
1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates
You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.
"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?
To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."
If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.
Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.
Which is better?
1. Use mining to gradually release the last 80% of shares along some front-loaded curve that burns all the money people are willing to pay for those shares.
2. Have a developer keep the last 80% of shares to be spent along some front-loaded curve as the developer thinks is best to achieve success..
3. Have the last 80% put in 101 spigots that dispense along some front-loaded curve as 101 elected delegates campaign and shareholders vote to get control of one of the spigots.
4. Release all the shares up front leaving no operating budget and hope that someone will donate to maintain and grow the assets.
You don't have to choose. All four are likely to be tried at some point. Your task is to pick the winner(s).
We all know the drawbacks to mining-based approaches. But consider the drawbacks to front-loading 101 spigots at the scale of what I think you're envisioning. Just imagine the costly rent-seeking activities. influence costs, the wasteful campaigns that 100s delegates would run. Millions of dollars wasted by hundreds of people on campaigning and rent-seeking. Imagine the scams and frauds that a few bad apples would try to perpetrate, the disagreements and fights about broken promises, the lawsuits about privacy, libel, and such. Imagine all of that drama that DAC developers and the community would have to experience. Now multiply that by 10, 20, 30 DACs. Do you see the problem with this governance scheme? It would likely be a nightmare that would give Bitshares a black eye or two. Why endorse this type of system upfront?
Maybe in the future there would be a specialized DAC that really needs this type of funding model to raise 100s of millions of dollars for development or marketing by wasting 10s of millions on campaign spending. But that should be really up to the DAC developer. Why hardwire this problematic governance into the prototype DAC upfront?
You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!What I would really like to see is this:QuoteFor this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.
Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.
I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.
You have stake in them all.
1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.
The challenges with this approach is:
1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates
You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.
"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?
To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."
If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.
Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.
Which is better?
1. Use mining to gradually release the last 80% of shares along some front-loaded curve that burns all the money people are willing to pay for those shares.
2. Have a developer keep the last 80% of shares to be spent along some front-loaded curve as the developer thinks is best to achieve success..
3. Have the last 80% put in 101 spigots that dispense along some front-loaded curve as 101 elected delegates campaign and shareholders vote to get control of one of the spigots.
4. Release all the shares up front leaving no operating budget and hope that someone will donate to maintain and grow the assets.
You don't have to choose. All four are likely to be tried at some point. Your task is to pick the winner(s).
We all know the drawbacks to mining-based approaches. But consider the drawbacks to front-loading 101 spigots at the scale of what I think you're envisioning. Just imagine the costly rent-seeking activities. influence costs, the wasteful campaigns that 100s delegates would run. Millions of dollars wasted by hundreds of people on campaigning and rent-seeking. Imagine the scams and frauds that a few bad apples would try to perpetrate, the disagreements and fights about broken promises, the lawsuits about privacy, libel, and such. Imagine all of that drama that DAC developers and the community would have to experience. Now multiply that by 10, 20, 30 DACs. Do you see the problem with this governance scheme? It would likely be a nightmare that would give Bitshares a black eye or two. Why endorse this type of system upfront?
Maybe in the future there would be a specialized DAC that really needs this type of funding model to raise 100s of millions of dollars for development or marketing by wasting 10s of millions on campaign spending. But that should be really up to the DAC developer. Why hardwire this problematic governance into the prototype DAC upfront?
When did Bitshares become inflationary again? I haven't been paying that close attention apparently, thank god we're re-inventing the wheel this is working great.
So there will be two chains? BTS1 AGS holders 50% PTS holders 50%
another one BTS2 AGS holders 10% PTS holders 10% delegate 80%
or maybe more? BTS 3\4\5\6………………………………
I feel quite doubtful about the whole thing, and I cannot see any promising future about the whole thing
First of all, with so many chains, if there is someone who wants to buy BTS, which one should he buy? he will be confused and he will be not sure which one to buy and will not want to buy because he will be not sure which one will be the final version.
second, before, all the people thought AGS\PTS would get 50%\50%, so they made the investment, but now they were told they might only get 10% or 10%? plus, if you said you would let the market decide, the fact woule be that, if PTS AGS holders only get 10% instead of 50%, the other people could get the rest 80%, of course people would like this plan. it is just like if the people who originally have a lot of money now have to spare their money to the poor people. of course this plan would be more welcome by the people, because poor people are much more.
sorry for my words, i am just very very XX right now.
The key point you are missing is that we do not control what variants others will make. Neither does Bitcoin.
What is different here, is you get ownership in all the honorable variations. You win if any one of them wins. Maybe more than one will be successful.
Imagine you had been following Bitcoin for a while, but had not been following BitShares. You then start to hear a lot of talk about this bank & exchange which has been launched so you decide to look into it. If you discovered several variants, all competing with one another, would you not be deterred from using one out of fear of picking the wrong one?
I think this scenario could majorly hinder adoption by anyone not already invested into BitShares, at a time when an influx of new money is needed.
Ideally BitShares would launch a product good enough that it picks up a strong network effect so quickly that any competing chains would fall by the wayside. This would give people enough confidence to pour money in, seeing it as the REAL and ORIGINAL chain, like Bitcoin compared with flaky altcoins, (even if competitors come along with slight advantages).
The nascent industry needs a paragon, a "Bitcoin" for the Bitshares world. The best, surest way to create one is to give the world an upgradable chain that has transparency and predictability for shareholders. One that minimizes confusion and doubt for investors. We want a chain that investors will see as a blue chip, best of breed, an Alpha--no dilution needed. We want to achieve that go-to status that Bitcoin was able to achieve. Dilution is easy and cheap; the best things in business and life rarely come for free. If BitShares must experiment with dilution, then let it be with experimental future chains. Official and non-official Clones will likely follow, but it will be near impossible for them to dislodge the Alpha if it has not been cheapened with the possibility of future dilution. If a Clone commits to no dilution, it will be seen as second on the scene. If it tries to compete by employing dilution strategies, it will just be perceived as a cheap knock-off.
In the longer term, maybe another chain will come that will overtake and supplant the Alpha. But by that time, the industry will have blossomed, and the Alpha's purpose and mission will have been fulfilled.
+1 Confirmed.The nascent industry needs a paragon, a "Bitcoin" for the Bitshares world. The best, surest way to create one is to give the world an upgradable chain that has transparency and predictability for shareholders. One that minimizes confusion and doubt for investors. We want a chain that investors will see as a blue chip, best of breed, an Alpha--no dilution needed. We want to achieve that go-to status that Bitcoin was able to achieve. Dilution is easy and cheap; the best things in business and life rarely come for free. If BitShares must experiment with dilution, then let it be with experimental future chains. Official and non-official Clones will likely follow, but it will be near impossible for them to dislodge the Alpha if it has not been cheapened with the possibility of future dilution. If a Clone commits to no dilution, it will be seen as second on the scene. If it tries to compete by employing dilution strategies, it will just be perceived as a cheap knock-off.
In the longer term, maybe another chain will come that will overtake and supplant the Alpha. But by that time, the industry will have blossomed, and the Alpha's purpose and mission will have been fulfilled.
+5% This is our approach.
Pendragon3, you are wrong about dilution. Dilution is not "easy and cheap" it is an extremely powerful force that if harnessed correctly (not easy) is VERY hard to compete against. The advent of approval voting has made effective, targeted, democratic dilution very close to reality imo. I don't think it would take much to implement DAC employees (paid through dilution during the growth phase of a DAC); this likely could be coded in a week. This is a KILLER APP that is so important and powerful it is hard to overstate. Yes, the word dilution will scare off some unimaginative investors but those are not the investors we need to attract. You are WAY underestimating how big a role dilution will play in successful DACs. An "alpha" DAC owned by investors who don't understand dilution will need an amazing amount of luck and lack of competition to stay "alpha"; an amount I don't think is realistic to expect.
The "CPOS" thread kind of turned into a dilution discussion so some info is also there: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4713.msg60250#msg60250
Agent86, can you explain how you think dilution is so powerful and "right"? It still just seems like a clever way of altering the deal to redistribute shares. If the investors accurately price future dilution into the value assessment on which they base their investment, then dilution is equivalent to reserving shares to fund development from the beginning. The only way dilution results in increased funding for development compared to reserved shares is if the dilution is more extreme than investors anticipate, meaning that the investors are effectively tricked into investing more than they would if they had realistic expectations.Trog... have you been involved with other crypto communities before? Do you need me to link for you a bunch of ridiculous threads begging for charity donations from community members to pay for things like attend conferences or pay a developer etc? Do you realize how ridiculous it is that Charlie Lee who founded Litecoin (worth 300million) can't work full time on litecoin because no one will pay him to work full time on it? Do you understand the correlation between what I am talking about and the phenomenon of highly valued cryptos with no money to do anything?
Agent86, can you explain how you think dilution is so powerful and "right"? It still just seems like a clever way of altering the deal to redistribute shares. If the investors accurately price future dilution into the value assessment on which they base their investment, then dilution is equivalent to reserving shares to fund development from the beginning. The only way dilution results in increased funding for development compared to reserved shares is if the dilution is more extreme than investors anticipate, meaning that the investors are effectively tricked into investing more than they would if they had realistic expectations.Trog... have you been involved with other crypto communities before? Do you need me to link for you a bunch of ridiculous threads begging for charity donations from community members to pay for things like attend conferences or pay a developer etc? Do you realize how ridiculous it is that Charlie Lee who founded Litecoin (worth 300million) can't work full time on litecoin because no one will pay him to work full time on it? Do you understand the correlation between what I am talking about and the phenomenon of highly valued cryptos with no money to do anything?
Edit:
Ok in more direct answer to your question. Reserving some huge portion of stake up front for a developer is not at all equivalent or as powerful and useful as giving the shareholders the right to decide what investments make sense over time. Doing it up front means you are putting all your eggs in one basket and trusting one developer to always take care of you forever. If he dumps the shares and quits or gets run over by a bus your f*cked.
Agent86, can you explain how you think dilution is so powerful and "right"? It still just seems like a clever way of altering the deal to redistribute shares. If the investors accurately price future dilution into the value assessment on which they base their investment, then dilution is equivalent to reserving shares to fund development from the beginning. The only way dilution results in increased funding for development compared to reserved shares is if the dilution is more extreme than investors anticipate, meaning that the investors are effectively tricked into investing more than they would if they had realistic expectations.Trog... have you been involved with other crypto communities before? Do you need me to link for you a bunch of ridiculous threads begging for charity donations from community members to pay for things like attend conferences or pay a developer etc? Do you realize how ridiculous it is that Charlie Lee who founded Litecoin (worth 300million) can't work full time on litecoin because no one will pay him to work full time on it? Do you understand the correlation between what I am talking about and the phenomenon of highly valued cryptos with no money to do anything?
Agent86, can you explain how you think dilution is so powerful and "right"? It still just seems like a clever way of altering the deal to redistribute shares. If the investors accurately price future dilution into the value assessment on which they base their investment, then dilution is equivalent to reserving shares to fund development from the beginning. The only way dilution results in increased funding for development compared to reserved shares is if the dilution is more extreme than investors anticipate, meaning that the investors are effectively tricked into investing more than they would if they had realistic expectations.
Ok in more direct answer to your question. Reserving some huge portion of stake up front for a developer is not at all equivalent or as powerful and useful as giving the shareholders the right to decide what investments make sense over time.
Setting aside shares upfront and raising capital are but two examples of tried and true ways. Do you think there is a reason that these two methods have been commonly used in the capital markets for decades, while outright dilution has not?Completely and provably false. see post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4713.msg61701#msg61701
There is another problem with dilution strategies that has not really been discussed. That is the following: who will decide exactly how the funds are allocated and used? Which employees get the spoils, and how much they get? Who will decide how much to spend, and on which projects? Which marketing initiatives or infrastructure projects should get priority?Yes, as I said in my previous post, a smart dilution algo with the right incentive structures is not an immediately obvious problem to solve... it's "not easy" And that's why it's such a big deal that BitShares is on the verge of cracking the nut.
It will be governance by the massesuh... it's governance by the shareholders... the only governance that makes any sense.
It seems that you think that a diffuse group of shareholders can coordinate effectively on the best way to invest and to compensate employees. That seems awfully naive.yea... except that's how every single company works.
Investors are capital-providers. They are not managers.Wrong again. If you think your job is done as soon as you write the check, in most cases you can kiss that money good-bye. You, as the shareholder, are responsible for your investment. You abdicate this responsibility and power to your own peril.
Setting aside shares upfront and raising capital are but two examples of tried and true ways. Do you think there is a reason that these two methods have been commonly used in the capital markets for decades, while outright dilution has not?Completely and provably false. see post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4713.msg61701#msg61701
Not so fast, my friend. "Dilution" in the VC world is actually a form of financing, i.e., capital-raising. That means the VC gets shares for providing money to the company company. Often, anti-dilution clauses are put in place as a safeguard to protect early investors. This is very different I think from the dilution in a crypto chain that you have in mind.QuoteThere is another problem with dilution strategies that has not really been discussed. That is the following: who will decide exactly how the funds are allocated and used? Which employees get the spoils, and how much they get? Who will decide how much to spend, and on which projects? Which marketing initiatives or infrastructure projects should get priority?
Yes, as I said in my previous post, a smart dilution algo with the right incentive structures is not an immediately obvious problem to solve... it's "not easy" And that's why it's such a big deal that BitShares is on the verge of cracking the nut.
I submit that the following algo works and creates the right incentives:
Employees are elected by "approval voting." Along with your "approval" you indicate an appropriate annual salary in bips (gets paid out daily). Only an employee with over 50% support of stake ends up paid. Their salary is the median voted by stake (people who did not vote for the employee are included in the median as voting for a "0" salary).
Any "inactive stake" (no transactions for over 1 year and paid inactivity penalty) should be removed from the voting algorithm. Stake may voluntarily "abstain" and thus remove their stake from the voting algorithm.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4660.0
Your proposed "algorithm" would be very inefficient and wasteful. It defies economic principles. The fact is, a diffuse set of thousands or millions of shareholders doesn't have the information and unity of objectives to efficiently make lower-level employee pay decisions. Why doesn't the median voter in Apple decide the salary of the CFO or a senior vice president? Because it would be terribly inefficient for shareholders to coordinate on a business decision like this, leading to waste and agency problems. That type of decision is best left to management.QuoteIt will be governance by the massesuh... it's governance by the shareholders... the only governance that makes any sense.
By "governance by the masses", I meant "day-to-day decision making by shareholders." Hopefully, that was clear.QuoteIt seems that you think that a diffuse group of shareholders can coordinate effectively on the best way to invest and to compensate employees. That seems awfully naive.yea... except that's how every single company works.
Every company is ultimately governed by the shareholders; the shareholders elect the board of directors, they can fire the CEO and vote on his comp plan. They can hire people to make informed decisions on their behalf but the "the diffuse group of shareholders" are ultimately the ones who voted in the leadership and call all the shots.
Name one publicly-traded company--out of the tens of thousands--in which shareholders make the day-to-day business decisions. I'm not talking about high-level governance and oversight, or hiring and firing a CEO, but decisions like paying and hiring rank and file employees or deciding on day-to-day spending, working capital management, and the like.QuoteInvestors are capital-providers. They are not managers.Wrong again. If you think your job is done as soon as you write the check, in most cases you can kiss that money good-bye. You, as the shareholder, are responsible for your investment. You abdicate this responsibility and power to your own peril.
You seem to somehow acknowledge that investors are smart enough to find a capable trustworthy developer (such as bytemaster) and fund this developer. And yet as soon as they do this they all of a sudden become incompetent idiots who can never be trusted to make a smart decision again.
Again, you're conflating high-level governance/oversight with day-to-day management of the enterprise. Shareholders almost surely should do the former, but they are ill-equipped to the latter. They don't have the right information or incentives for doing the latter.I'm not asking them to do the latter. I am asking them to put money into the hands of those they trust to do the latter on their behalf.
Setting aside shares upfront and raising capital are but two examples of tried and true ways. Do you think there is a reason that these two methods have been commonly used in the capital markets for decades, while outright dilution has not?Completely and provably false. see post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4713.msg61701#msg61701
Not so fast, my friend. "Dilution" in the VC world is actually a form of financing, i.e., capital-raising. That means the VC gets shares for providing money to the company company. Often, anti-dilution clauses are put in place as a safeguard to protect early investors. This is very different I think from the dilution in a crypto chain that you have in mind.QuoteThere is another problem with dilution strategies that has not really been discussed. That is the following: who will decide exactly how the funds are allocated and used? Which employees get the spoils, and how much they get? Who will decide how much to spend, and on which projects? Which marketing initiatives or infrastructure projects should get priority?
Yes, as I said in my previous post, a smart dilution algo with the right incentive structures is not an immediately obvious problem to solve... it's "not easy" And that's why it's such a big deal that BitShares is on the verge of cracking the nut.
I submit that the following algo works and creates the right incentives:
Employees are elected by "approval voting." Along with your "approval" you indicate an appropriate annual salary in bips (gets paid out daily). Only an employee with over 50% support of stake ends up paid. Their salary is the median voted by stake (people who did not vote for the employee are included in the median as voting for a "0" salary).
Any "inactive stake" (no transactions for over 1 year and paid inactivity penalty) should be removed from the voting algorithm. Stake may voluntarily "abstain" and thus remove their stake from the voting algorithm.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4660.0
Your proposed "algorithm" would be very inefficient and wasteful. It defies economic principles. The fact is, a diffuse set of thousands or millions of shareholders doesn't have the information and unity of objectives to efficiently make lower-level employee pay decisions. Why doesn't the median voter in Apple decide the salary of the CFO or a senior vice president? Because it would be terribly inefficient for shareholders to coordinate on a business decision like this, leading to waste and agency problems. That type of decision is best left to management.QuoteIt will be governance by the massesuh... it's governance by the shareholders... the only governance that makes any sense.
By "governance by the masses", I meant "day-to-day decision making by shareholders." Hopefully, that was clear.QuoteIt seems that you think that a diffuse group of shareholders can coordinate effectively on the best way to invest and to compensate employees. That seems awfully naive.yea... except that's how every single company works.
Every company is ultimately governed by the shareholders; the shareholders elect the board of directors, they can fire the CEO and vote on his comp plan. They can hire people to make informed decisions on their behalf but the "the diffuse group of shareholders" are ultimately the ones who voted in the leadership and call all the shots.
Name one publicly-traded company--out of the tens of thousands--in which shareholders make the day-to-day business decisions. I'm not talking about high-level governance and oversight, or hiring and firing a CEO, but decisions like paying and hiring rank and file employees or deciding on day-to-day spending, working capital management, and the like.QuoteInvestors are capital-providers. They are not managers.Wrong again. If you think your job is done as soon as you write the check, in most cases you can kiss that money good-bye. You, as the shareholder, are responsible for your investment. You abdicate this responsibility and power to your own peril.
You seem to somehow acknowledge that investors are smart enough to find a capable trustworthy developer (such as bytemaster) and fund this developer. And yet as soon as they do this they all of a sudden become incompetent idiots who can never be trusted to make a smart decision again.
Again, you're conflating high-level governance/oversight with day-to-day management of the enterprise. Shareholders almost surely should do the former, but they are ill-equipped to the latter. They don't have the right information or incentives for doing the latter.
Not so fast, my friend. "Dilution" in the VC world is actually a form of financing, i.e., capital-raising. That means the VC gets shares for providing money to the company company. Often, anti-dilution clauses are put in place as a safeguard to protect early investors. This is very different I think from the dilution in a crypto chain that you have in mind.You can try to draw a distinction but the result is the exact same. New shares are issued, prior shares are diluted, funds raised from the sale of new shares are used to pay company expenses.
Your proposed "algorithm" would be very inefficient and wasteful. It defies economic principles. The fact is, a diffuse set of thousands or millions of shareholders doesn't have the information and unity of objectives to efficiently make lower-level employee pay decisions. Why doesn't the median voter in Apple decide the salary of the CFO or a senior vice president? Because it would be terribly inefficient for shareholders to coordinate on a business decision like this, leading to waste and agency problems. That type of decision is best left to management."The salary of management is a decision best left to management" ... I'm not sure where to start with that one.
Dear Bytemaster,
Please do whatever will be best for BitShares X in the long run. This might include maneuvers to dilution. Choose what's best for BTS as a business. Forget ABL, forget naysayers, forget trolls, forget lazies, forget people who don't get 'it', clear your mind, and do what we need you to do. We will support you all the way.
Pursuit of truth,
bitbro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk