The Bitshares Team is sitting on a flying rocket while building and fixing it at the same time. And that is a damn hard job.
From my perspective they are doing a really good job. Sure, sometimes they screw up. But who doesn't.
But it is not the screw up that matters, it is how you handle it.

If you ever launched your own start-up you know that everything is changing on a daily basis.
You have more investors, users, contractors, partners, lawyers..  than you would have ever imagined.
You learn on a daily basis.

Did the allocation work out best for my interests (alot of DNS@bter)? Not so much. Does it make me mad or angry? No.
Because Dan and Toast tried everything to make it right. I could blame bter for the withdrawal limits but I won't:

It's true that perspective matters. So in the worst case the extra BTS will go directly to bter.
Which is (afaik) the most supportive exchange for the Bitshares ecosystem.

I was avidly arguing against the DNS allocation, because it wasn't right. Was I personally compensated much, yet?
Not really. But I understand why and that is what was lacking before.

So all I ask the people who feel betrayed is to think about is how hard it is to optimize a highly dynamic system in real time while being traded live at the markets.
I guess sometimes you can't make everyone happy. You can just try to make it right for most people.
If you then go the extra mile for the minority which was left out - which you and others did (compensation/fund) - it deserves a lot of respect.
 
What I am doing next? Buying BTSX and setting up delegates (I guess I have to upgrade them soon

Thanks everyone! Hope you are holding up well. Full steam ahead!

Hey Guys/Hey Bytemaster,

I guess there is a lot of discussions happening if vesting is a good idea and AGS/PTS are treated fairly.
I also bought some PTS and I think a 10% cut is not that bad if we want Bitshares to thrive.

But I haven't heard a single valid argument why DNS is treated differently.
So maybe somebody is able to help me understand.

Dan argued that DNS's marked cap can not be treated equally because it lacks liquidity and kept telling that $10K figure.
That figure is just not true as it was just pulled from bter and the most volume and liquidity is available at btc38.

Another problem I have  with that argument is that with the proposal in the wild everyone was pulling their bids.
The liquidity established again at the new market price which was a result of the announcement.
So it is a slight stunt to first scare away/down the liquidity and than later start arguing there was none.

Look at the liquidity and volume at the new market price:
http://www.btc38.com/trade.html?btc38_trade_coin_name=dns [nofollow]
http://www.btc38.com/trade.html?mk_type=btc&btc38_trade_coin_name=dns [nofollow]
The volume on btc38 in the last 24h was about 600.000.000 DNS alone. Thats almost close to the volume of BTSX.
(I know volume is != liquidity but still, the liquidity was just shifted to the new 'announced value')
If liquidity is a reason to devalue the market cap, why wasn't this equally applied for PTS and DNS?

DNS/KeyID  was already trading live. It was pushed to exchanges. Features were announced, etc.
Additionally shareholders have been told by the core team that the invested funds will be preserved.

Do you still think this is balanced? Look at the markets:

BTSX +20%
PTS    -10%
DNS   -50% (at least)

It just feels as you have the least skin in the game at the DNS/KeyID DAC. Is that correct?

For this thread I have one wish. please stay on topic and be nice to each other. I welcome any valid argument

I think this merger is a good idea, but if we do so why at 7% AGS/PTS and 3% DNS?

DNS brings a lot to the table, which also BTSX benefits from.
BTSX+DNS would be great. But screwing the DNS investors that hard?
Please look at the markets and tell me what I am missing here.

tl;dr

Why was it announced (in the beginning) that this will be based on market cap (Dan)?
Why did toast tell everyone that invested funds will be preserved?
Why are the DACs (PTS/DNS) treated differently regarding their market cap/liquidity? 


Thanks again for everyone's time. Let's sort this and move on!

Hey folks,

Just posted this in the main merger thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10279.msg135338#msg135338

Synopsis:
It has been said that:
- the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
- the invested funds will be preserved.

It looks like both won't happen as Stan already stated that:

Now do you begin to see why it wasn't hard for the VOTE and DNS developers to Seize the Day?

I just want to understand it. I would love to hear your opinions. Please let's be nice to each other.

hey,

after updating the client (git pull from github) and recompiling the client, it quickly crashes.
I already tried to re-download the whole blockchain and started from scratch (just kept the wallet.dat), but it still doesn't work (regardless if I mine or not)

(running on linux 64bit, ubuntu 12.04, reproducible on various machines)

any ideas? thanks in advance.