No one can execute a scam on the DevShares network because all such scams are deemed to be legitimate voluntary choices in a contract free world.
It is important that you have your expectations set right here. Exchanges may freely walk away with your DevShares deposits without any moral issues.
we fully understand DVS .
We just don't understand why people keep saying "we never said 11.05 was supposed to snapshot for devshares " .
Because , they did said it .
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0)
read the bottom of the OP , then you'll know what kind of issue we're talking about here .
we fully understand DVS .
We just don't understand why people keep saying "we never said 11.05 was supposed to snapshot for devshares " .
Because , they did said it .
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0)
read the bottom of the OP , then you'll know what kind of issue we're talking about here .
we fully understand DVS .
We just don't understand why people keep saying "we never said 11.05 was supposed to snapshot for devshares " .
Because , they did said it .
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0)
read the bottom of the OP , then you'll know what kind of issue we're talking about here .
Ok, I'll ask Dan and Stan to make an apology for not communicating with each other. Will that fix the problem?
That's one part of the problem . At least for now you know people are angry not because of the value of devshares , and not because they misunderstood the intended allocation plan made by BM . My mission here is only to ensure those people that they're not crazy to remember that "11.05 was the final snapshot for I3" . If that fact got ignored , then maybe this kind of future conflict will happen over and over again .
The rest I'll leave it to those who cares about the value of the potentially worthless devshares . I for one don't care about DVS .
It's irrelevant whether DVS is worth $0.01
It's the principal of BTS or devs being seen to direct anything at post 11/05 PTS.
From BM:QuoteNo one can execute a scam on the DevShares network because all such scams are deemed to be legitimate voluntary choices in a contract free world.
It's irrelevant whether DVS is worth $0.01
It's the principal of BTS or devs being seen to direct anything at post 11/05 PTS.
we fully understand DVS .
We just don't understand why people keep saying "we never said 11.05 was supposed to snapshot for devshares " .
Because , they did said it .
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0)
read the bottom of the OP , then you'll know what kind of issue we're talking about here .
+5%
Toast, its not that we think DevShares will become super valuable, its the fact that you and Dan said that the merger was the last official snapshot for PTS. It is a violation of your promise to the shareholders. People can't trust the developers of Bitshares if they don't keep their word to the shareholders.
Me and several Chinese translators and consultants were blaming ourselves at first after seeing stan's post about how mis-translation can mislead people into wrong conclusions . We though we made a huge mistake to mislead the entire Chinese community about the significance of 11.05 snapshot . It's a relieve to find out that we didn't .
But that begs to a new question , how can we avoid that in the future ?
We can't just keep dancing around things after the facts , right ?
Everybody , Please keep checking with me about things like this before making any decisions you might think would be a problem , since I have a good memory and connection of a large community . I can even be the middle man of your own dev team .
It's irrelevant whether DVS is worth $0.01
It's the principal of BTS or devs being seen to direct anything at post 11/05 PTS.
This is my issue too. It's about respect, and about whether or not BTS delegates actually work for BTS and can be trusted by stakeholders to have their best interests in mind.
pre OR post PTS shouldn't get them, since it is BTS ONLY who will have to pay for whatever minuscule value DVS gets through dilution of OUR funds. PTS/AGS already diluted us 25% in an agreement I think was very fair. There is no need to continue pushing through wealth transfers from us to them, in any shape or form, no matter the amount. They already received enough. It's simply exhausting that as a stakeholder you have to be on guard against this kind of stuff even now, months later. It should be a closed chapter.
"What's the next thing that our delegates will give to PTS/AGS?" This is the question that makes people paranoid.
Edit: honoring the 11/5 snapshot is also fair since that was what originally announced. The current sharedrop to the undead PTS just must be undone. Its a question of avoiding a new integrity crisis and split of the community. No matter how good our tech is we will not survive if we just keep having PR blunder after PR blunder like this.
I really don't understand why people complaining about the allocation of something that has absolutely no value other than testing like devshares. This could have been airdroped to any coin...To my understanding Devshares have no value.
I really don't understand why people complaining about the allocation of something that has absolutely no value other than testing like devshares. This could have been airdroped to any coin...To my understanding Devshares have no value.
It has symbolic value.
It shows that the devs still consider PTS/AGS to be things to sharedrop on. But we thought that the reason we were giving 7% of BTS to AGs and PTS in the merger was so that in the future, everyone would sharedrop to BTS instead. And yes, I mean EVERYONE. We thought that we were buying out the social consensus and replacing it with a new social consensus of sharedropping to BTS.
I would not have supported the merger if I had known how it would end up. It turned into a betrayal of BTS holders. We should only have merged with DNS and VOTE, not PTS/AGS imo.
PTS should be dead, and all sharedrops should go only to BTS in the future. Our community is still fractured because this is not the case. We were supposed to be buying community unity, and instead we bought betrayal.
How can BTS merge with VOTE? The only way to do this is by share dropping on PTS/AGS, also the DNS situation during the merger discussion is a reason to share drop to AGS/PTSI really don't understand why people complaining about the allocation of something that has absolutely no value other than testing like devshares. This could have been airdroped to any coin...To my understanding Devshares have no value.
It has symbolic value.
It shows that the devs still consider PTS/AGS to be things to sharedrop on. But we thought that the reason we were giving 7% of BTS to AGs and PTS in the merger was so that in the future, everyone would sharedrop to BTS instead. And yes, I mean EVERYONE. We thought that we were buying out the social consensus and replacing it with a new social consensus of sharedropping to BTS.
I would not have supported the merger if I had known how it would end up. It turned into a betrayal of BTS holders. We should only have merged with DNS and VOTE, not PTS/AGS imo.
PTS should be dead, and all sharedrops should go only to BTS in the future. Our community is still fractured because this is not the case. We were supposed to be buying community unity, and instead we bought betrayal.
How can BTS merge with VOTE? The only way to do this is by share dropping on PTS/AGS, also the DNS situation during the merger discussion is a reason to share drop to AGS/PTSI really don't understand why people complaining about the allocation of something that has absolutely no value other than testing like devshares. This could have been airdroped to any coin...To my understanding Devshares have no value.
It has symbolic value.
It shows that the devs still consider PTS/AGS to be things to sharedrop on. But we thought that the reason we were giving 7% of BTS to AGs and PTS in the merger was so that in the future, everyone would sharedrop to BTS instead. And yes, I mean EVERYONE. We thought that we were buying out the social consensus and replacing it with a new social consensus of sharedropping to BTS.
I would not have supported the merger if I had known how it would end up. It turned into a betrayal of BTS holders. We should only have merged with DNS and VOTE, not PTS/AGS imo.
PTS should be dead, and all sharedrops should go only to BTS in the future. Our community is still fractured because this is not the case. We were supposed to be buying community unity, and instead we bought betrayal.
The way I recall it is we paid for the merge with vote. This whole mess started when it was said that VOTE could potentially outgrow BTS. And since VOTE would have most of the BTS features, it could make BTS worthless. This was the main reason for the merger, and thus share dropping to AGS/PTSHow can BTS merge with VOTE? The only way to do this is by share dropping on PTS/AGS, also the DNS situation during the merger discussion is a reason to share drop to AGS/PTSI really don't understand why people complaining about the allocation of something that has absolutely no value other than testing like devshares. This could have been airdroped to any coin...To my understanding Devshares have no value.
It has symbolic value.
It shows that the devs still consider PTS/AGS to be things to sharedrop on. But we thought that the reason we were giving 7% of BTS to AGs and PTS in the merger was so that in the future, everyone would sharedrop to BTS instead. And yes, I mean EVERYONE. We thought that we were buying out the social consensus and replacing it with a new social consensus of sharedropping to BTS.
I would not have supported the merger if I had known how it would end up. It turned into a betrayal of BTS holders. We should only have merged with DNS and VOTE, not PTS/AGS imo.
PTS should be dead, and all sharedrops should go only to BTS in the future. Our community is still fractured because this is not the case. We were supposed to be buying community unity, and instead we bought betrayal.
They can merge with vote by doing exactly what they did.
The problem is that we also paid significantly more to merge with PTS/ATS, but then in the end DIDNT MERGE WITH THEM, because they didnt go away, and we didnt switch to sharedropping to BTS as a social consensus. We ended up paying for nothing.
The way I recall it is we paid for the merge with vote. This whole mess started when it was said that VOTE could potentially outgrow BTS. And since VOTE would have most of the BTS features, it could make BTS worthless. This was the main reason for the merger, and thus share dropping to AGS/PTS
The way I recall it is we paid for the merge with vote. This whole mess started when it was said that VOTE could potentially outgrow BTS. And since VOTE would have most of the BTS features, it could make BTS worthless. This was the main reason for the merger, and thus share dropping to AGS/PTS
Yes we paid 3% for VOTE.
The problem is the other 7%/7% we paid for AGS/PTS, and then after we paid, the social consensus didnt change.
The counter argument is that, devshares will be the platform that gets exposed to the best new Bitshares features first (if I understand the intention of a release-candidate/test platform correctly).QuoteWould you be angry if the devs coordinated a massive dump to test out undercollateralization?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
Would you be angry if the devs discovered and exploited a bug in DVS which permanently brought down the network and forced a reset?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
Would you be angry if the devs reset the network and allocated 100% to Vikram?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
QuoteThe counter argument is that, devshares will be the platform that gets exposed to the best new Bitshares features first (if I understand the intention of a release-candidate/test platform correctly).QuoteWould you be angry if the devs coordinated a massive dump to test out undercollateralization?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
Would you be angry if the devs discovered and exploited a bug in DVS which permanently brought down the network and forced a reset?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
Would you be angry if the devs reset the network and allocated 100% to Vikram?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
Someone outside the community who hears about some new feature development in a public press-release for example, and wants to get involved, is going to be told that it's not in Bitshares BTS yet but is in devshares.
The first thing they will want to know is how to acquire devshares.
Also, If Bitshares' developers are paid out of BTS contributions through delegate inflation, then it should be BTS holders that are the recipient of sharedrops irrespective of the perceived value. Dropping to PTS gives PTS a lot symbolic legitimacy when BTS holders already paid to acquire them, at least that seems to be the common understanding.
QuoteThe counter argument is that, devshares will be the platform that gets exposed to the best new Bitshares features first (if I understand the intention of a release-candidate/test platform correctly).QuoteWould you be angry if the devs coordinated a massive dump to test out undercollateralization?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
Would you be angry if the devs discovered and exploited a bug in DVS which permanently brought down the network and forced a reset?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
Would you be angry if the devs reset the network and allocated 100% to Vikram?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
Someone outside the community who hears about some new feature development in a public press-release for example, and wants to get involved, is going to be told that it's not in Bitshares BTS yet but is in devshares.
The first thing they will want to know is how to acquire devshares.
Also, If Bitshares' developers are paid out of BTS contributions through delegate inflation, then it should be BTS holders that are the recipient of sharedrops irrespective of the perceived value. Dropping to PTS gives PTS a lot symbolic legitimacy when BTS holders already paid to acquire them, at least that seems to be the common understanding.
Yeah I would be worried if DVS is traded that it could be a competitor. My worst case scenario is something like...
DVS - The Trojan Horse
- The sharedrop will make DVS independent of BTS & seem well distributed.
- Key BTS developers will buy it up after it's purposely made pretty worthless at first.
- The result is you now have a traded DAC that looks well distributed, isn't beholden to BTS and all the key BTS talent has a much larger % stake in.
- Will all the BTS development talent be incentivised to turn DVS into something more over time at the expense of, but while being salaried by BTS?
Crazy I know :P
LOL, what a joke. The only garanty DVS has made, is that it will be on of the most unstable wallets in the crypto space. And that theft by third parties like exchanges is tolerated. Yes, I foresee the markets to be filled with non-stop 100 BTC buy walls.
LOL, what a joke. The only garanty DVS has made, is that it will be on of the most unstable wallets in the crypto space. And that theft by third parties like exchanges is tolerated. Yes, I foresee the markets to be filled with non-stop 100 BTC buy walls.
Exchanges get hacked all the time and it's tolerated. No change there. Reputable exchanges wont just steal them as that would endanger their image. It could end up with a stable wallet for a few months or so, you never know.
BTS makes no guarantees either and here we are.
we fully understand DVS .
We just don't understand why people keep saying "we never said 11.05 was supposed to snapshot for devshares " .
Because , they did said it .
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0)
read the bottom of the OP , then you'll know what kind of issue we're talking about here .
News letter has replaced this.
We reserve the right to do what we think is best for the product we are releasing.
QuoteWe reserve the right to do what we think is best for the product we are releasing.
You're bitshares delegates. BTS is your product. You need to do what's best for BTS, not DVS, not AGS, not PTS.
You're bitshares delegates. BTS is your product. You need to do what's best for BTS
The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end. Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.
There are a lot of honest people here who are oppose any snapshot from I3 post 11.05 as well .
Devshares is just the example .
No one cares about the value of devshares . But there is a rabbit hole here . If as they said , 11.05 is just an misunderstanding , and I3 did not promised 11.05 was the final snapshot for all I3 DACs , then that would bring a whole new question : Will there be a "valuable-shares" from I3 devs sharedrop to PTS post 11.05 as well ? Is that 100% impossible ? That's the real question people are afraid of , if that happens , it will tear this community apart again .
The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end. Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.
There are a lot of honest people here who are oppose any snapshot from I3 post 11.05 as well .
Devshares is just the example .
No one cares about the value of devshares . But there is a rabbit hole here . If as they said , 11.05 is just an misunderstanding , and I3 did not promised 11.05 was the final snapshot for all I3 DACs , then that would bring a whole new question : Will there be a "valuable-shares" from I3 devs sharedrop to PTS post 11.05 as well ? Is that 100% impossible ? That's the real question people are afraid of , if that happens , it will tear this community apart again .
i3 doesn't really exist and from what I understand the developers are no longer employees. So if one of them has a project and sharedrops to something besides BTS then there is nothing to prevent that. Nor can I3 even make any statement saying it won't happen. The developers are independent operators sharing a common goal.
This is all about greed. Like those who scream the loudest about social/welfare programs. You really start to examine these people and it isn't some sort of morale/ethical reasoning. That is what they claim and how they view themselves, but the truth is they're just pissed off someone else is getting something for free and they're not. I've seen it too many times in life for anyone to convince me otherwise. Humanity is a broken record of s**t.
People paid big bucks to buy PTS for the promise of allocation , people lost big bucks when I3 decided to stop the promise of allocation and return a 2 year vest in plan instead . Now , they're greedy about some worthless devshares ? You are kidding , right ?
"Sharedropping to" PTS is different from "working for" PTS, is it not?
The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end. Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.
There are a lot of honest people here who are oppose any snapshot from I3 post 11.05 as well .
Devshares is just the example .
No one cares about the value of devshares . But there is a rabbit hole here . If as they said , 11.05 is just an misunderstanding , and I3 did not promised 11.05 was the final snapshot for all I3 DACs , then that would bring a whole new question : Will there be a "valuable-shares" from I3 devs sharedrop to PTS post 11.05 as well ? Is that 100% impossible ? That's the real question people are afraid of , if that happens , it will tear this community apart again .
i3 doesn't really exist and from what I understand the developers are no longer employees. So if one of them has a project and sharedrops to something besides BTS then there is nothing to prevent that. Nor can I3 even make any statement saying it won't happen. The developers are independent operators sharing a common goal.
This is all about greed. Like those who scream the loudest about social/welfare programs. You really start to examine these people and it isn't some sort of morale/ethical reasoning. That is what they claim and how they view themselves, but the truth is they're just pissed off someone else is getting something for free and they're not. I've seen it too many times in life for anyone to convince me otherwise. Humanity is a broken record of s**t.
People paid big bucks to buy PTS for the promise of allocation , people lost big bucks when I3 decided to stop the promise of allocation and return a 2 year vest in plan instead . Now , they're greedy about some worthless devshares ? You are kidding , right ?
No, not kidding at all. So you are arguing about the future and I explained to you that I3 is basically dead and it is all BTS. I don't even understand your point. Out of all the discussions we can have, this one doesn't even seem like an issue.
I can't even figure out your argument . People "lost big bucks"... so are those the same people hurt by this allocation or not? It is just a total waste of time arguing about this shit.
If a developer wants to make a new DAC in the future they'll be able to do what they wish regardless of whether they were an I3 employee. Again, I don't understand your argument or the expectations. if I work for someone, they do not own all my projects after I change employers. At least that is how it works in America, but I can't speak for the rest of the world. Your expectations seem to be different from mine or there is a communication breakdown.
Are you familiar with the term "de facto" ?
Also , if you think for a second that the obligations can easily be removed , then why we need the merger to begin with ?
We could have just keep BTS where it was and hired by the blockchain , and there will be no I3 , so no one should have the right to ask the "original" I3 devs to honor the social consensus , so we don't even need to dilute BTS to buy out PTS and AGS to begin with .
Right ? That's what you're arguing , I3 devs are not I3 . So technically the merger did not have to happen , because if everybody is hired by BTS thus changed employee , they don't need to hold their promise to AGS and PTS .
Devshares has no value, so I don't care. After this drop, let's come together and agree on a new social consensus.
The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end. Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.
Devshares has no value, so I don't care. After this drop, let's come together and agree on a new social consensus.
i3 doesn't really exist and from what I understand the developers are no longer employees. So if one of them has a project and sharedrops to something besides BTS then there is nothing to prevent that. Nor can I3 even make any statement saying it won't happen. The developers are independent operators sharing a common goal.
We interact here informally a lot. Perhaps we should stop?, I agree. We prefer less but firm information to more but confusing information.
The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end. Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.
This.
You people are either insane or don't understand DevShares. I'm not sure which is better.
Seriously, who the heck cares how they are allocated as long as there is some distribution that gets them into the hands of a community.
The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end. Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.
This.
You people are either insane or don't understand DevShares. I'm not sure which is better.
Seriously, who the heck cares how they are allocated as long as there is some distribution that gets them into the hands of a community.
It's about the price of BTS.
China is by in large the main market. They had a nightmare with the merger having to convince people that the merger was good and that PTS was dead and would no longer be supported. The people speaking up here couldn't care about the value of DVS. They're also not greedy themselves, they're simply care about how the market as a whole will interpret the news. The Chinese consensus is definitely that this will be seen as contrary to the conditions of the merger. This is also how the majority of the currently smaller English market seem to receive it too.
If you don't hate money. Try to get out of your own mind and answer the question, 'how will the market react & interpret this decision as a whole short and medium term?'
In this case it's PR 101 for media minds to know this is a very negative value move and there's no reason it's worth the risk of how it will be received. So what you see here is not greedy people but mostly PR and Media minded people having to step up and do damage control, for the sake of BTS CAP on their Christmas Day for the actions that a brick wall of dev minds might have thought was completely reasonable.
The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end. Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.
This.
You people are either insane or don't understand DevShares. I'm not sure which is better.
Seriously, who the heck cares how they are allocated as long as there is some distribution that gets them into the hands of a community.
It's about the price of BTS.
China is by in large the main market. They had a nightmare with the merger having to convince people that the merger was good and that PTS was dead and would no longer be supported. The people speaking up here couldn't care about the value of DVS. They're also not greedy themselves, they're simply care about how the market as a whole will interpret the news. The Chinese consensus is definitely that this will be seen as contrary to the conditions of the merger. This is also how the majority of the currently smaller English market seem to receive it too.
If you don't hate money. Try to get out of your own mind and answer the question, 'how will the market react & interpret this decision as a whole short and medium term?'
In this case it's PR 101 for media minds to know this is a very negative value move and there's no reason it's worth the risk of how it will be received. So what you see here is not greedy people but mostly PR and Media minded people having to step up and do damage control, for the sake of BTS CAP on their Christmas Day for the actions that a brick wall of dev minds might have thought was completely reasonable.
The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end. Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.
There are a lot of honest people here who are oppose any snapshot from I3 post 11.05 as well .
Devshares is just the example .
No one cares about the value of devshares . But there is a rabbit hole here . If as they said , 11.05 is just an misunderstanding , and I3 did not promised 11.05 was the final snapshot for all I3 DACs , then that would bring a whole new question : Will there be a "valuable-shares" from I3 devs sharedrop to PTS post 11.05 as well ? Is that 100% impossible ? That's the real question people are afraid of , if that happens , it will tear this community apart again .
i3 doesn't really exist and from what I understand the developers are no longer employees. So if one of them has a project and sharedrops to something besides BTS then there is nothing to prevent that. Nor can I3 even make any statement saying it won't happen. The developers are independent operators sharing a common goal.
This is all about greed. Like those who scream the loudest about social/welfare programs. You really start to examine these people and it isn't some sort of morale/ethical reasoning. That is what they claim and how they view themselves, but the truth is they're just pissed off someone else is getting something for free and they're not. I've seen it too many times in life for anyone to convince me otherwise. Humanity is a broken record of s**t.
People paid big bucks to buy PTS for the promise of allocation , people lost big bucks when I3 decided to stop the promise of allocation and return a 2 year vest in plan instead . Now , they're greedy about some worthless devshares ? You are kidding , right ?
No, not kidding at all. So you are arguing about the future and I explained to you that I3 is basically dead and it is all BTS. I don't even understand your point. Out of all the discussions we can have, this one doesn't even seem like an issue.
I can't even figure out your argument . People "lost big bucks"... so are those the same people hurt by this allocation or not? It is just a total waste of time arguing about this shit.
If a developer wants to make a new DAC in the future they'll be able to do what they wish regardless of whether they were an I3 employee. Again, I don't understand your argument or the expectations. if I work for someone, they do not own all my projects after I change employers. At least that is how it works in America, but I can't speak for the rest of the world. Your expectations seem to be different from mine or there is a communication breakdown.
Are you familiar with the term "de facto" ?
Also , if you think for a second that the obligations can easily be removed , then why we need the merger to begin with ?
We could have just keep BTS where it was and hired by the blockchain , and there will be no I3 , so no one should have the right to ask the "original" I3 devs to honor the social consensus , so we don't even need to dilute BTS to buy out PTS and AGS to begin with .
Right ? That's what you're arguing , I3 devs are not I3 . So technically the merger did not have to happen , because if everybody is hired by BTS thus changed employee , they don't need to hold their promise to AGS and PTS .
No, never heard the term "de facto". Explain how it relates to this.
If I knew Chinese then perhaps you would not be so confused. :(
De facto is the latin term for something that's not written in black and white like legal paper but in fact they have the same outcome and social recognition thus it is the same thing in practice .
For example :
If you have a broken leg before you took an issuance policy and got pass the exam somehow without mentioning the leg condition , the issuance company could argue that you've hidden your condition thus the policy must be void according to the contract . But , if you've constantly twitt about your leg condition in social media with real name , then you have "de facto" announced your condition , and the issuance company accepted your policy would be "de facto acceptance after the fact" , thus the policy can not be void .
Again , you don't need to speak Chinese , I haven't had any troubles with more serious stuff like the "US Code" before .
The language is not the issue here .
Devshares is de facto a I3 project , no matter how you read it .
I see the people here arguing with Stan are NOT asking for more DVS.+5%
The messages they are trying to deliver are:
1. PTS has been 'dead' since 11.05. This is the only snapshot date for PTS after then regarding the 'official' DACs like DevShares.
2. Bytemaster said in one post that DevShares would respect 11.05 snapshot for PTS.
3. Message 2 was widely spreaded around both English and Chinese community.
4. Actually Stan/developers/3I (I don't know whom I should put here :'( ) failed to follow message 2.
5. Stan didn't want to admit the fault and tried to defend himself by a reason which is not so reasonable and surely not accepted by them.
In a word, they hate someone always dance around the questions.
I, for one, think what they are trying to fight for is reasonable.
I see the people here arguing with Stan are NOT asking for more DVS.+5%
The messages they are trying to deliver are:
1. PTS has been 'dead' since 11.05. This is the only snapshot date for PTS after then regarding the 'official' DACs like DevShares.
2. Bytemaster said in one post that DevShares would respect 11.05 snapshot for PTS.
3. Message 2 was widely spreaded around both English and Chinese community.
4. Actually Stan/developers/3I (I don't know whom I should put here :'( ) failed to follow message 2.
5. Stan didn't want to admit the fault and tried to defend himself by a reason which is not so reasonable and surely not accepted by them.
In a word, they hate someone always dance around the questions.
I, for one, think what they are trying to fight for is reasonable.
I don't care even if the sharedrop for DevShares is a fault.
I just want to know if PTS is still support by this community or not
1、I don't think devshares have any value at all .
2、I can get more devshares from 12.14 snapshot because of what I3 returned .
3、Did you think 11.05 was the final snapshot date for all I3 related products before today ? Please answer directly .
... BTSX is now rebranded as just 'Bitshares' (BTS) and Invictus (the "company" that created the Bitshares software) is now disbanded. The original core developers are still working hard on BTS, but are now employed by the blockchain rather than a centralized corporate entity (this was done for obvious reasons). The new Bitshares uses an inflationary protocol that enables delegates to be paid for supporting the network in ways other that just block production. This new funding model enables the currency to incentivize rapid development and innovation. So, we are left with both BTS and PTS. These two tokens are not direct competitors, and are rather symbiotic for at least the following reasons:
* Both tokens promote DPoS as the most secure, innovative, and efficient consensus algorithm in the world.
* BTSX was sharedropped 50% to PTS and thus represents a largely overlapping demographic.
* They use slightly different implementations of DPoS. BTS uses targeted inflation to raise funds for development/etc, while PTS is deflationary. In PTS, a delegate with a 100% pay rate receives 100% of the fees in the blocks that they produce. A 0% pay rate would simply burn those fees, thus reducing the supply and increasing the value of everyone else's shares.
* BTS is a true 'DAC' (distributed autonomous corporation), and is designed to rapidly evolve and to disrupt a variety of industries (DNS, Vote, Banking/Exchange, etc). BTS is the Ferrari of crypto-currencies and has cutting edge features found in no other coin.
* PTS is a stable 'currency-DAC' and sharedrop token. It is designed primarily to provide a stable unit of account with fair distribution, and to be a launching pad for feature-specific DACs (some of which may compete directly or indirectly with BTS). PTS is a reference implementation of DPoS and is the original and preferred sharedrop token. It cannot and will not compete with BTS on specific features or within specific industries. Rather, PTS is an investment in the protocol and the ecosystem of future BitShares DACs.
I think at this point most people realize that the crypto wars will not result in a single consolidated token used by every person and for every application. Rather, as Andreas puts it, there will likely be a few or a handful of tokens that take a majority of the marketshare. The rest will make up a long tail of tokens directed towards increasingly niche applications. If you believe this to be true, then it stands that both BTS and PTS can be enormously successful without competing directly for market share.
However PTS/AGS is a demographic which is likely significantly different from BTS and thus may have greater value as testers.
"support" means make it more valuable, include sharedrop to PTS holder, develop, marketing, etc..I see the people here arguing with Stan are NOT asking for more DVS.+5%
The messages they are trying to deliver are:
1. PTS has been 'dead' since 11.05. This is the only snapshot date for PTS after then regarding the 'official' DACs like DevShares.
2. Bytemaster said in one post that DevShares would respect 11.05 snapshot for PTS.
3. Message 2 was widely spreaded around both English and Chinese community.
4. Actually Stan/developers/3I (I don't know whom I should put here :'( ) failed to follow message 2.
5. Stan didn't want to admit the fault and tried to defend himself by a reason which is not so reasonable and surely not accepted by them.
In a word, they hate someone always dance around the questions.
I, for one, think what they are trying to fight for is reasonable.
I don't care even if the sharedrop for DevShares is a fault.
I just want to know if PTS is still support by this community or not
What do you mean support? and how do you define community? All these arguments have these problems. Sooo vague, but I am not sure how it can be any other way.
I3 is not going to be sharedropping on PTS going forward. Does this really seem to be in question to you guys? What support is ok and isn't?
If a developer asks a question who sharedropped to PTS in the forums, should anyone involved with I3 ignore the question? If so, then I guess the developer should just go all crypto and hide their identity? Should there be no PTS community forum on bitsharestalk?
edit - On a lighter note, I plan on killing this argument just by sheer will of arguing. It won't be a first for me. :)
my question was that what was your understanding of 11.05 snapshot before today ?
That's a the first step to understand the mess . because now people are saying that 11.05 wasn't even final to begin with .
However PTS/AGS is a demographic which is likely significantly different from BTS and thus may have greater value as testers.
Wasn't that demographic already included in the merger?
I wonder why did we inflate 14% to get PTS and AGS in.
yes, they can do this. they can fork many PTS if they like
my question was that what was your understanding of 11.05 snapshot before today ?
That's a the first step to understand the mess . because now people are saying that 11.05 wasn't even final to begin with .
I think that 11.05 was the last official snapshot for I3 and all I3 products should use that.
Although I support the new PTS, I think there were too many unknowns for some time for it to be adopted officially by I3 after all that occurred.
However I don't think it is important, because all DACs (Sparkle/new PTS) have been third-party which can do what they wish.
my question was that what was your understanding of 11.05 snapshot before today ?
That's a the first step to understand the mess . because now people are saying that 11.05 wasn't even final to begin with .
I think that 11.05 was the last official snapshot for I3 and all I3 products should use that.
Although I support the new PTS, I think there were too many unknowns for some time for it to be adopted officially by I3 after all that occurred.
However I don't think it is important, because all DACs (Sparkle/new PTS) have been third-party which can do what they wish.
Thank you for that , just want to let the others know that those who thought 11.05 was the final snapshot for I3 related product are not crazy and suck at reading information at all .
The issue here is that I3 is not claiming this is not a I3 product , instead they are claiming that those who thought 11.05 was the final were mistaken .
but maybe BTS forum should not support PTS anymore, maybe admin can delete the post because it is unrelated topic?
I3 is not going to be sharedropping on PTS going forward.You can't say this. Even I3 can't say this right at this moment. (oh, they can, at then Stan claims that the words they've said are not formal, if formal ones are needed, check the newsletter. Even he can also say the words on the newsletter are not formal, check with I3's lawyer to get the formal ones. LOL)
Does this really seem to be in question to you guys?Yes. It matters quite a lot. It's about trust. I will stop all of my investments on BTS once I figure out I can't trust the 'official' guys anymore.
Thank you for that , just want to let the others know that those who thought 11.05 was the final snapshot for I3 related product are not crazy and suck at reading information at all .
The issue here is that I3 is not claiming this is not a I3 product , instead they are claiming that those who thought 11.05 was the final were mistaken .
This is absolutely wrong. The reason that 11/05 was proposed to be the last "official" (non-3rd party) snapshot is because there will be no future "official" snapshots. Neither Dan or Stan ever argued that the social consensus would be arbitrarily mutated to make the 11/05 snapshot the perpetual sharedrop instrument in place of the live PTS chain. Devshares is not a production coin - it is a worthless testnet. It makes sense to use the live PTS chain in Devshares because the social consensus is and always was based on a liquid PTS. The fact remains that the last "official" snapshot will remain the one that took place on 11/05. Just an amazing twisting of facts to imply that this was somehow a modification of the social consensus (it wasn't).
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0)
You'll have to convince people to forget this first before accusing them being twisting the facts .
PTS will continue to circulate and trade; however, without I3 planning any future snapshots its value will be based upon the speculative value of 3rd party DACs such as Music, Play, and others.
..
The confusion here is that Stan said "that thread can not represent anything anymore , it's replaced by the newsletter" .
Any thing mentioned in that thread and not ended up in the newsletter is merely a draft and thus not official .
ok , I guess all the people that view 11.05 as the final snapshot have issues with denial .
Rest assured , I can accept that I was the only one misunderstood the whole thing .
But what about others ? Can you help clear that , first with all the western members here with denial issues , then I can learn from you and see how that goes .
Because , simply "you were wrong" is not a answer . There are too many people out there won't accept that .
Cube , I'll leave this to you and all the other adults here .
I guess as a PR and media specialist , my concern for this matter is obviously moot . Since you're treat this like a debate instead of a PR issue .
You can always win an argument because sooner or later your counter party will lost the interest to argue any further . But you can't win back the public image in a long time no matter how hard you try .
I'm too invested in this so I tried very hard to serve BTS and the community as those companies I've served as a PR consultant before . But clearly there is nothing related to PR for me to do here . So , I guess I'll just have to divide my time to do something that people are actually interested in .
Amazing things will come . Stay tuned .
Does this really seem to be in question to you guys?Yes. It matters quite a lot. It's about trust. I will stop all of my investments on BTS once I figure out I can't trust the 'official' guys anymore.
Cube , I'll leave this to you and all the other adults here .
I guess as a PR and media specialist , my concern for this matter is obviously moot . Since you're treat this like a debate instead of a PR issue .
You can always win an argument because sooner or later your counter party will lost the interest to argue any further . But you can't win back the public image in a long time no matter how hard you try .
I'm too invested in this so I tried very hard to serve BTS and the community as those companies I've served as a PR consultant before . But clearly there is nothing related to PR for me to do here . So , I guess I'll just have to divide my time to do something that people are actually interested in .
Amazing things will come . Stay tuned .
You are passionate about bts and its ideals, and you have been conveying your beloved subject to your friends and other community members.
It would be a pity and a great disservice to all, if the result of this thread is a loss of a passionate voice.
No. This should not be the outcome. My attempt to highlight the given facts, in a manner as best I can, is not meant to be an argument for nor against the issues at hand. The hope is that with these new facts, those affected would begin their internal self-reconciliation, and one day be able to accept them. It is a pain to see people suffer from misunderstand because of a lack of information, or a misinterpretation of it. Let us do our part to resist misinformation.
You are a PR consultant and you are a great addition to bitshares. I believe your skill and experiences are very much sought after here, and other crypto spheres. Do continue giving your passionate and wonderful contributions.
Cheers! :)
My current conclusion
Our dev team plus Stan, even collectively lack the ability to discern within a market acceptable degree of accuracy the likely response of the market to their actions.
Why? Developers seem to be very literal. They appear to be genuinely confused & frustrated even as a collective, why the market would respond negatively to some of their decisions.
The title of Toast's thread and even BM's last post in the same thread highlight it best. (They actually think it has something to do with DVS.) They also think it is shareholders fault for reacting that way, not an entirely predictable response of a market.
It's also possible Stan doesn't intend to be so condescending, patronising and evasive in most of his posts either.
Everyone thinks you are all rock stars we want you to be appreciated and respected as such. We want you to change the world for the better, be rich and famous and make us wealthy in the process. I doubt most want to overly influence what you work on or what you do. What you have though is a dev brick wall atm. Even when you think you've taken input, it gets filtered through the literal wall and we end up with decisions the create completely unessecary PR problems for the umpteenth time. The result is frustration and confusion from the markst because we can't understand how a group of exceptionally intelligent people can make such unnecessary unpopular, divisive and BTS value damaging decisions.
It's perfectly obvious that the DVS thing of going post 11/05 would be interpreted badly especially by the Chinese market after the merger & is not worth the blowback.
But I will try to understand that I'm dealing with a group of people that don't intend to make such negative PR decisions that look antagonistic towards their own shareholders. They are genuinely even as a collective just very literal people who are unable to pre-emptively discern how their actions will be received and the wider implications of them on the market
My current conclusion
Our dev team plus Stan, even collectively lack the ability to discern within a market acceptable degree of accuracy the likely response of the market to their actions.
Why? Developers seem to be very literal. They appear to be genuinely confused & frustrated even as a collective, why the market would respond negatively to some of their decisions.
The title of Toast's thread and even BM's last post in the same thread highlight it best. (They actually think it has something to do with DVS.) They also think it is shareholders fault for reacting that way, not an entirely predictable response of a market.
It's also possible Stan doesn't intend to be so condescending, patronising and evasive in most of his posts either.
Everyone thinks you are all rock stars we want you to be appreciated and respected as such. We want you to change the world for the better, be rich and famous and make us wealthy in the process. I doubt most want to overly influence what you work on or what you do. What you have though is a dev brick wall atm. Even when you think you've taken input, it gets filtered through the literal wall and we end up with decisions the create completely unessecary PR problems for the umpteenth time. The result is frustration and confusion from the markst because we can't understand how a group of exceptionally intelligent people can make such unnecessary unpopular, divisive and BTS value damaging decisions.
It's perfectly obvious that the DVS thing of going post 11/05 would be interpreted badly especially by the Chinese market after the merger & is not worth the blowback.
But I will try to understand that I'm dealing with a group of people that don't intend to make such negative PR decisions that look antagonistic towards their own shareholders. They are genuinely even as a collective just very literal people who are unable to pre-emptively discern how their actions will be received and the wider implications of them on the market
I certainly recognize that I did blame others for their response and that in general I have no one to blame but myself. I appreciate that you recognize our INTENT is do do well by all and that we cannot possibly know others expect.
One thing I have learned is that changing anything is bad and I am loath to do it even if the original decision was a mistake.
I would much rather not be the one to make decisions because it is easy to critique but difficult to decide. I also don't want to let the squeaky wheel rule the day just because they complain the loudest. So it is a real challenge to determine where the AGGREGATE PUBLIC OPINION falls.
If changing to a 100% BTS allocation would make everyone happy it would be a no brainer. I am not in this to pick favorites.
So is there any objection to a 100% BTS allocation, if so please speak up now.
I am actually thinking about allocating 10% to nullstreet leaders and 10% to Chinese community leaders and 10% to core developers and 10% AGS 10% PTS and 50% to BTS. This way the key players all have something to work with.
My only fear in changing anything is that it will just result in a DIFFERENT PR mess. Can you all prove to me that the PR would be better by changing it now than by letting it ride?
My prediction is that if we were to exclude AGS / PTS all together that many people will create just as much negative PR.
One thing I have learned is that changing anything is bad and I am loath to do it even if the original decision was a mistake.
If changing to a 100% BTS allocation would make everyone happy it would be a no brainer. I am not in this to pick favorites.
So is there any objection to a 100% BTS allocation, if so please speak up now.
I am actually thinking about allocating 10% to nullstreet leaders and 10% to Chinese community leaders and 10% to core developers and 10% AGS 10% PTS and 50% to BTS. This way the key players all have something to work with.
As it happens, it is perhaps good this cloud hangs over DevShares.. and apt, given its purpose. DevShares are of little consequence and it does not matter, so long as everyone with real interest has an option to participate and that requires BTS is acknowledged.
The problem is simply reviving PTS and AGS where the perception had been those were finished with in return for vested shares in BTS.
My thought is that AGS/PTS are acknowledged within BTS but vested; acknowledging those vested shares is not a problem, indeed that would seem appropriate.
So, I would expect widely the reply will be - yes, 100% BTS preferred.. unless you now consider [nullstreet leaders]/[Chinese community leaders]/[core developers] do not have enough support from BTS delegate payments and that only sharedrop to them is useful, in which case I cannot see anyone challenging that. Trying to drop to a few ?insiders who held PTS in the face of what was a clear market drop because of the ~merge to BTS, is odd and appears preferential to those who have PTS still. If there is a clear need to prefer a drop to certain resources like the Chinese or like certain devs, then that's fine - but do it in the open because such moves draw support and acknowledge those in the gesture as well as in its value.
My current conclusion
Our dev team plus Stan, even collectively lack the ability to discern within a market acceptable degree of accuracy the likely response of the market to their actions.
Why? Developers seem to be very literal. They appear to be genuinely confused & frustrated even as a collective, why the market would respond negatively to some of their decisions.
The title of Toast's thread and even BM's last post in the same thread highlight it best. (They actually think it has something to do with DVS.) They also think it is shareholders fault for reacting that way, not an entirely predictable response of a market.
It's also possible Stan doesn't intend to be so condescending, patronising and evasive in most of his posts either.
Everyone thinks you are all rock stars we want you to be appreciated and respected as such. We want you to change the world for the better, be rich and famous and make us wealthy in the process. I doubt most want to overly influence what you work on or what you do. What you have though is a dev brick wall atm. Even when you think you've taken input, it gets filtered through the literal wall and we end up with decisions the create completely unessecary PR problems for the umpteenth time. The result is frustration and confusion from the markst because we can't understand how a group of exceptionally intelligent people can make such unnecessary unpopular, divisive and BTS value damaging decisions.
It's perfectly obvious that the DVS thing of going post 11/05 would be interpreted badly especially by the Chinese market after the merger & is not worth the blowback.
But I will try to understand that I'm dealing with a group of people that don't intend to make such negative PR decisions that look antagonistic towards their own shareholders. They are genuinely even as a collective just very literal people who are unable to pre-emptively discern how their actions will be received and the wider implications of them on the market
I certainly recognize that I did blame others for their response and that in general I have no one to blame but myself. I appreciate that you recognize our INTENT is do do well by all and that we cannot possibly know others expect.
One thing I have learned is that changing anything is bad and I am loath to do it even if the original decision was a mistake.
I would much rather not be the one to make decisions because it is easy to critique but difficult to decide. I also don't want to let the squeaky wheel rule the day just because they complain the loudest. So it is a real challenge to determine where the AGGREGATE PUBLIC OPINION falls.
If changing to a 100% BTS allocation would make everyone happy it would be a no brainer. I am not in this to pick favorites.
So is there any objection to a 100% BTS allocation, if so please speak up now.
I am actually thinking about allocating 10% to nullstreet leaders and 10% to Chinese community leaders and 10% to core developers and 10% AGS 10% PTS and 50% to BTS. This way the key players all have something to work with.
My only fear in changing anything is that it will just result in a DIFFERENT PR mess. Can you all prove to me that the PR would be better by changing it now than by letting it ride?
My prediction is that if we were to exclude AGS / PTS all together that many people will create just as much negative PR.
I agree with the market not liking changes.
My prediction is that a 100% drop to BTS is optimal.
I would look in particular to hear what CN-members has to say. China is the biggest market and his interpretation of the situation is probably one of the best guages of overall market opinion to how BTS as a market will respond to decisions imo.
What you are proposing is to modify the social consensus based on your personal opinion of the merits of BTS vs PTS as a sharedrop target.
* The fact remains that the social consensus was never eliminated or modified by the merger. What you are proposing is...
* Competitors of BTS would never sharedrop to it (think Ethereum), while PTS is a DAC-agnostic token that would be viewed favorably by all future DACs.
I would much rather not be the one to make decisions because it is easy to critique but difficult to decide. I also don't want to let the squeaky wheel rule the day just because they complain the loudest. So it is a real challenge to determine where the AGGREGATE PUBLIC OPINION falls.
[...]
Other third parties who consider PTS2.0 crowd's interest is worth acknowledging can acknowledge PTS2.0. For now, to me and it seems a few others, PTS is not what it was - those involved are smaller in number and perhaps include whales that will argue strongly in their own favour. If that is seen not to be the case later, perhaps BTS future DACs can return to dropping on PTS2.0 because it is clear that crowd is beyond what dropping on BTS can do for BitShares' interest. For now though, to my mind, dropping on BTS 100% is at least equal and likely safer and simpler to dropping on BTS+PTS2.0.
Frankly, I don't care beyond having been disappointed that the BTS drop in DevShares didn't seem to show at all. Hopefully, that will be rebooted at some point, that we can all spend time instead testing it to breaking point.
If you continue to make a good case for PTS2.0, then I might return to that. I don't want to suggest it's not possibly useful but atm all interest is in BTS. Show me 3rd party DACs likely to drop and my interest in PTS will evolve..
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
So, I would expect widely the reply will be - yes, 100% BTS preferred.. unless you now consider [nullstreet leaders]/[Chinese community leaders]/[core developers] do not have enough support from BTS delegate payments and that only sharedrop to them is useful, in which case I cannot see anyone challenging that. Trying to drop to a few ?insiders who held PTS in the face of what was a clear market drop because of the ~merge to BTS, is odd and appears preferential to those who have PTS still. If there is a clear need to prefer a drop to certain resources like the Chinese or like certain devs, then that's fine - but do it in the open because such moves draw support and acknowledge those in the gesture as well as in its value.
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.
The people who were too lazy to try and find suckers to fleece for a few dollars because it was expected their PTS would drop to 0 are now "insiders"? Seriously? What are you then? Somewhere between hustler and scammer or you never owned any PTS - I suppose.
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.
on one hand , they want to be free from all the professional things that big companies do .
on the other hand , they want to attract big money and big investors like big companies do in order to grow .
It's a transition stage that they might not be ready . All the blow backs , just part of what shareholders would do in even a 5 million USD worth of company in the real world , let alone a 40 million USD one . They want to earn the big bucks , they'll have to be equiped to earn it , do things they don't like in their bones .
Damage control is never fun and not as effective as avoiding the problems in the first place. But I think the biggest danger right now is people just feel like they are not being heard; they feel like the devs can't seem to understand where they are coming from or don't care. Some might feel disrespected. This is a danger because that is when people give up on arguing and just sell (arguing is a lot of work).
I certainly recognize that I did blame others for their response and that in general I have no one to blame but myself. I appreciate that you recognize our INTENT is do do well by all and that we cannot possibly know others expect.
One thing I have learned is that changing anything is bad and I am loath to do it even if the original decision was a mistake.
I would much rather not be the one to make decisions because it is easy to critique but difficult to decide. I also don't want to let the squeaky wheel rule the day just because they complain the loudest. So it is a real challenge to determine where the AGGREGATE PUBLIC OPINION falls.
If changing to a 100% BTS allocation would make everyone happy it would be a no brainer. I am not in this to pick favorites.
So is there any objection to a 100% BTS allocation, if so please speak up now.
I am actually thinking about allocating 10% to nullstreet leaders and 10% to Chinese community leaders and 10% to core developers and 10% AGS 10% PTS and 50% to BTS. This way the key players all have something to work with.
My only fear in changing anything is that it will just result in a DIFFERENT PR mess. Can you all prove to me that the PR would be better by changing it now than by letting it ride?
My prediction is that if we were to exclude AGS / PTS all together that many people will create just as much negative PR.
Damage control is never fun and not as effective as avoiding the problems in the first place. But I think the biggest danger right now is people just feel like they are not being heard; they feel like the devs can't seem to understand where they are coming from or don't care. Some might feel disrespected. This is a danger because that is when people give up on arguing and just sell (arguing is a lot of work).
So with that in mind, I think making a change now will be a net positive and shows a willingness to listen. I think even considering that 100% BTS is a change of course for Devshares distribution, it would still have a lot of support. I think there are other distributions that would have been fine if it was the original plan but I think at this point I would go for simplicity.
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.
on one hand , they want to be free from all the professional things that big companies do .
on the other hand , they want to attract big money and big investors like big companies do in order to grow .
It's a transition stage that they might not be ready . All the blow backs , just part of what shareholders would do in even a 5 million USD worth of company in the real world , let alone a 40 million USD one . They want to earn the big bucks , they'll have to be equiped to earn it , do things they don't like in their bones .
Does Bitcoin have all of the professional things that big companies have?
Big companies have professional things because they keep things behind closed doors. We do almost everything in the open.
A DAC must not depend upon any one individuals strengths or weaknesses.
PTS is not a competitor to BTS and certainly nobody is "stealing resources" (that's not how open source software works). They are completely different tokens directed towards different applications. BTS is a feature-rich DAC that is intended to disrupt a variety of industries, while PTS is a DAC-agnostic sharedrop token that could never compete with BTS on features or development. No crypto-coin in history has EVER been displaced by a copycat clone or a token with a subset of its features. Other DACs will exist whether we want them to or not. PTS ensures that we get a stake in all of those tokens, many of which will be doing things that BTS doesn't desire to do (see Music for example). It is true that 3rd party DACs (not PTS) will compete with Bitshares and that some of them may be successful despite our wishes. PTS ensures that we own a stake in those tokens too. It is not a zero-sum game. We are not losing anything by holding both the vanilla DPoS sharedrop token (PTS) and the Ferrari of DACs (BTS). Killing one will not increase the value of the other, but having them both will probably lead to some synergy. This is the same reason why Toyota created Lexus, Honda created Acura, etc, etc, etc. They are directed towards different applications (not competitors), and yet they both promote the same underlying technology (DPoS).
Dropping 100% of Devshares (BTS test network) onto BTS doesn't violate any interpretation of the "social consensus" that I ever had. It was said very early on that new banking/exchange type chains might drop to BTSX rather than AGS/PTS and just honor them because they had a stake in BTSX.Damage control is never fun and not as effective as avoiding the problems in the first place. But I think the biggest danger right now is people just feel like they are not being heard; they feel like the devs can't seem to understand where they are coming from or don't care. Some might feel disrespected. This is a danger because that is when people give up on arguing and just sell (arguing is a lot of work).
So with that in mind, I think making a change now will be a net positive and shows a willingness to listen. I think even considering that 100% BTS is a change of course for Devshares distribution, it would still have a lot of support. I think there are other distributions that would have been fine if it was the original plan but I think at this point I would go for simplicity.
From an admittedly biased perspective:
* BTS source includes a ton of functionality that must be pruned out by 3rd parties
* BTS includes functionality that complicates sharedrops (market orders cannot currently be accounted for in a sharedrop).
* Do we want BTS devs spending time on these things, which have no direct benefit for BTS but are rather beneficial for 3rd parties (some of which will compete with BTS)?
* If you are arguing against hasty decision making and lack of consensus building, should we change the current longstanding consensus in favor of a group of people who have miscontsrued & misunderstood Dan's posts to create the FUD in this thread? Or are we better off not introducing yet another potentially harmful change, respecting the originally conveyed message and those who understood it correctly, and avoiding yet another another fallout?
* PTS is not in competition with BTS and serves an entirely different demographic. If Ethereum adopts DPoS they will most certainly not sharedrop to BTS. PTS would be an easier sell in this case.
* Separate nonoverlapping functions here: modular design principles should be used.
There are a million reasons why the social consensus should not be tampered with. A healthy PTS is a net benefit for DPoS and for BTS. Any claims to the contrary are just not supported by any historical precedent.
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.
I wonder what those media guys would have advised if our plan had been to stick with the 11/05 date and therefore sharedrop on ourselves before we returned all the PTS...
::)
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.
I wonder what those media guys would have advised if our plan had been to stick with the 11/05 date and therefore sharedrop on ourselves before we returned all the PTS...
::)
My current conclusion
Our dev team plus Stan, even collectively lack the ability to discern within a market acceptable degree of accuracy the likely response of the market to their actions.
Why? Developers seem to be very literal. They appear to be genuinely confused & frustrated even as a collective, why the market would respond negatively to some of their decisions.
The title of Toast's thread and even BM's last post in the same thread highlight it best. They actually think it has something to do with DVS. They also think it is shareholders fault for reacting that way, not an entirely predictable response of a market.
It's also possible Stan doesn't intend to be so condescending, patronising and evasive in most of his posts either.
Everyone thinks you are all rock stars we want you to be appreciated and respected as such. We want you to change the world for the better, be rich and famous and make us wealthy in the process. I doubt most want to overly influence what you work on or what you do. What you have though is a dev brick wall atm. Even when you think you've taken input, it gets filtered through the literal wall and we end up with decisions the create completely unessecary PR problems for the umpteenth time. The result is frustration and confusion from the markst because we can't understand how a group of exceptionally intelligent people can make such unnecessary unpopular, divisive and BTS value damaging decisions.
It's perfectly obvious that the DVS thing of going post 11/05 would be interpreted badly especially by the Chinese market after the merger & is not worth the blowback.
But I will try to understand that I'm dealing with a group of people that don't intend to make such negative PR decisions that look antagonistic towards their own shareholders. They are genuinely even as a collective just very literal people who are unable to pre-emptively discern how their actions will be received and the wider implications of them on the market
Alphabar using the Bitshares name and I3 social consensus. This just seems wrong to most of us. What Alphabar seeks to create is a kind of universal sharedrop token for any future DAC and that seems like a completely new venture with it's philosophical roots in Sharedrop Theory and not in the old PTS social consensus. Yet he uses the Bitshares name, yet he uses the PTS name, yet he claims the right to market as the preferred sharedrop target for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit.
The fact that Devshares effectively "recognized" his claim has only further irked people that feel Bitshares developers are essentially encouraging Alphabar instead of promoting sharedrops to BTS. To be clear, I'm talking about sharedrops from future DAC's that use the Bitshares toolkit (important point).
It is my opinion that if Alphabar would change the name of his DAC and drop the references to being the preferred sharedrop token for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit, then all this would go away.
On the other hand if Bytemaster prefers to gift Alphabar the Bitshares name and preferred sharedrop status then that needs to be said as well. Then we can all move on.
Alphabar using the Bitshares name and I3 social consensus. This just seems wrong to most of us. What Alphabar seeks to create is a kind of universal sharedrop token for any future DAC and that seems like a completely new venture with it's philosophical roots in Sharedrop Theory and not in the old PTS social consensus. Yet he uses the Bitshares name, yet he uses the PTS name, yet he claims the right to market as the preferred sharedrop target for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit.
The fact that Devshares effectively "recognized" his claim has only further irked people that feel Bitshares developers are essentially encouraging Alphabar instead of promoting sharedrops to BTS. To be clear, I'm talking about sharedrops from future DAC's that use the Bitshares toolkit (important point).
It is my opinion that if Alphabar would change the name of his DAC and drop the references to being the preferred sharedrop token for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit, then all this would go away.
On the other hand if Bytemaster prefers to gift Alphabar the Bitshares name and preferred sharedrop status then that needs to be said as well. Then we can all move on.
Wow, another completely inaccurate characterization. What about Stan and Dan's repeated support of the PTS upgrade over the past weeks? what about TestZ (the custodian of PTS) supporting the upgrade? What about all of the exchanges and services supporting the upgrade? Did I manipulate all of these stakeholders into bending to my will? Absolutely comical that you would frame this as though it was a lone venture. This was a consensus among PTS shareholders, nothing else. Why alphaBar and not TestZ or Stan or Dan or Bter or Poloniex or Coinmarketcap or etc, etc, etc?? You cannot create a story around your own facts, sorry.
And where is this "completely new venture" you speak of? Literally nothing has changed about PTS except the consensus algorithm (and even that was out of pure necessity due to a dying PoW chain). Name one thing, except the DPoS upgrade, that has changed. Did we alter the allocation? No. Did we modify the social consensus? No. Did we change the name? No. Where is this "new venture" that you speak of? The only new venture I see is the attempt that is being made here to twist Dan and Stans prior statements (in one of many early proposals) to make it appear as though it was their position that PTS should die. And no matter how many times they correct this, in this very thread, people continue to promote it as though it is fact. Let me state this for the record again:
* The merger was not intended to kill or absorb PTS. This was confirmed repeatedly by both Stan and Dan.
* Stan and Dan are no longer the official custodians of PTS. They have expressed support for the project, but are not responsible for its continued development.
* The social consensus was not modified by the merger. Even if a DAC intended to create a new or different social consensus, as Dan stated in the Mumble session this morning, the core feature-independent DPoS protocol was funded and supported almost entirely by PTS and AGS investors so it would make sense to sharedrop to that demographic and not BTS. Ultimately, developers will do as they please, but there is a compelling argument to continue the role of PTS and AGS as sharedrop instruments going forward.
[...] I had suggested trying to create a good sharedrop token using PTS, AGS, some BTS and even other projects like NXt, NEM etc. The idea was to pitch a sharedrop token to potential toolkit users which is widely distributed with an united community. Sadly, alphaBar and co looked at it as decreasing their profits and ignored it.
[...] I had suggested trying to create a good sharedrop token using PTS, AGS, some BTS and even other projects like NXt, NEM etc. The idea was to pitch a sharedrop token to potential toolkit users which is widely distributed with an united community. Sadly, alphaBar and co looked at it as decreasing their profits and ignored it.
So let me get this straight. I spent countless hours of my own time and money to upgrade PTS for the benefit of all PTS stakeholders. I insist on no pre-mine, no development fund, no tampering with the allocation, and you have the nerve to accuse me of selfishness?? Working for free is now considered "selfish", what a world we live in...
And if leaving the allocation and the social consensus untouched was enough to ignite such a reaction, do you honestly think we would all be able to agree to some arbitrary hodge-podge allocation of random sharedrops to "Nxt, NEM etc."??? Not happening.
The good news for PTS holders is that we have a strong community of dedicated stakeholders, developers, and delegates along with a variety of features that make PTS ideally suited for sharedrop by 3rd party DACs:
* provably fair 100% PoW distribution, no pre-mine
* reference implementation of the BitShares Toolkit
* deflationary DPoS protocol
* a variety of DAC-friendly features in the works, including our new "wallet_import_by_signedmsg" command
For those who are not invested, or who divested recently, it is not too late to diversify your portfolio by owning a little PTS.
For those who are not invested, or who divested recently, it is not too late to diversify your portfolio by owning a little PTS.
"The Social Consensus is dead. Long live the Social Consensus!"
People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted. That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL. We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*. Bad assumptions apparently.
Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.
There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.
on one hand , they want to be free from all the professional things that big companies do .
on the other hand , they want to attract big money and big investors like big companies do in order to grow .
It's a transition stage that they might not be ready . All the blow backs , just part of what shareholders would do in even a 5 million USD worth of company in the real world , let alone a 40 million USD one . They want to earn the big bucks , they'll have to be equiped to earn it , do things they don't like in their bones .
Does Bitcoin have all of the professional things that big companies have?
Big companies have professional things because they keep things behind closed doors. We do almost everything in the open.
A DAC must not depend upon any one individuals strengths or weaknesses.
Some thoughts:
For those of us that are staunch BTS supporters there are a couple things about PTS to consider:
1) If I3 held donated PTS past Dec 31, 2014 it may be taxable income. The income would be valued at donation date. Recall that was about $15/share. Current prices are about $0.26/share. Do the math on that tax liability and all of a sudden them returning all PTS starts to make sense.
2) If PTS dies with I3, and the BTS "merger", the SEC may have case for PTS being a security.
So while you fight the anti-PTS war in support of BTS think about what's really going on and what a worse case scenario may look like.
As Stan often says, "Think bigger".
Some thoughts:
For those of us that are staunch BTS supporters there are a couple things about PTS to consider:
1) If I3 held donated PTS past Dec 31, 2014 it may be taxable income. The income would be valued at donation date. Recall that was about $15/share. Current prices are about $0.26/share. Do the math on that tax liability and all of a sudden them returning all PTS starts to make sense.
2) If PTS dies with I3, and the BTS "merger", the SEC may have case for PTS being a security.
So while you fight the anti-PTS war in support of BTS think about what's really going on and what a worse case scenario may look like.
As Stan often says, "Think bigger".
Even better you then drop AlphaBar's PTS on PTS POW, to buy them out! Even better burn them, to buy them out!
Changing everything other than the abbreviation 'PTS', does not sound like 'the same' to me. Hope the less tolerant accept your reading of the law.
Even better you then drop AlphaBar's PTS on PTS POW, to buy them out! Even better burn them, to buy them out!
Changing everything other than the abbreviation 'PTS', does not sound like 'the same' to me. Hope the less tolerant accept your reading of the law.
If BTC wanted to upgrade from POW to DPOS what should the process be?
Some thoughts:
For those of us that are staunch BTS supporters there are a couple things about PTS to consider:
1) If I3 held donated PTS past Dec 31, 2014 it may be taxable income. The income would be valued at donation date. Recall that was about $15/share. Current prices are about $0.26/share. Do the math on that tax liability and all of a sudden them returning all PTS starts to make sense.
2) If PTS dies with I3, and the BTS "merger", the SEC may have case for PTS being a security.
So while you fight the anti-PTS war in support of BTS think about what's really going on and what a worse case scenario may look like.
As Stan often says, "Think bigger".
I apriciate everyones concern and feedback, but please back off. We all get the point and this discussion is interfering with actual productive R&D.
If we are talking about principles here:
1) PTS should live on and be supported by who ever wants to buy in / share drop to it.
2) BTS should ask for a reasonable recognition (20% or less) share drop in future chains.
3) AGS is what it is. It is just another share drop target. I personally thing PTS should have share dropped 10% on AGS for funding its upgrade and freeing it from mining.
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.
WOW!!!! - That is humongous nail in the alphaBar's coffin :)
Ask somebody to lock this thread.
I will delete the other(as I started it)!
WOW!!!! - That is humongous nail in the alphaBar's coffin :)
Ask somebody to lock this thread.
I will delete the other(as I started it)!
Oh brother, I guess we can ignore everything bm has ever said that directly contradicts your entire argument (including point #1 "PTS should live on...") because his opinion on a 10% sharedrop differed from ours. Your sensationalism is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about PTS being "absorbed", "dead", "bought out" and every other mischaracterization of Stan and Dan's words you've made in this thread.
I apriciate everyones concern and feedback, but please back off. We all get the point and this discussion is interfering with actual productive R&D.
If we are talking about principles here:
1) PTS should live on and be supported by who ever wants to buy in / share drop to it.
2) BTS should ask for a reasonable recognition (20% or less) share drop in future chains.
3) AGS is what it is. It is just another share drop target. I personally thing PTS should have share dropped 10% on AGS for funding its upgrade and freeing it from mining.
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.
Then don't set any by sharedropping to PTS and AGS!
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.
Then don't set any by sharedropping to PTS and AGS!
BM has said he is considering sharedropping 100% on BTS. He wants to gauge the reaction before doing so.
+5%Damage control is never fun and not as effective as avoiding the problems in the first place. But I think the biggest danger right now is people just feel like they are not being heard; they feel like the devs can't seem to understand where they are coming from or don't care. Some might feel disrespected. This is a danger because that is when people give up on arguing and just sell (arguing is a lot of work).
I certainly recognize that I did blame others for their response and that in general I have no one to blame but myself. I appreciate that you recognize our INTENT is do do well by all and that we cannot possibly know others expect.
One thing I have learned is that changing anything is bad and I am loath to do it even if the original decision was a mistake.
I would much rather not be the one to make decisions because it is easy to critique but difficult to decide. I also don't want to let the squeaky wheel rule the day just because they complain the loudest. So it is a real challenge to determine where the AGGREGATE PUBLIC OPINION falls.
If changing to a 100% BTS allocation would make everyone happy it would be a no brainer. I am not in this to pick favorites.
So is there any objection to a 100% BTS allocation, if so please speak up now.
I am actually thinking about allocating 10% to nullstreet leaders and 10% to Chinese community leaders and 10% to core developers and 10% AGS 10% PTS and 50% to BTS. This way the key players all have something to work with.
My only fear in changing anything is that it will just result in a DIFFERENT PR mess. Can you all prove to me that the PR would be better by changing it now than by letting it ride?
My prediction is that if we were to exclude AGS / PTS all together that many people will create just as much negative PR.
So with that in mind, I think making a change now will be a net positive and shows a willingness to listen. I think even considering that 100% BTS is a change of course for Devshares distribution, it would still have a lot of support. I think there are other distributions that would have been fine if it was the original plan but I think at this point I would go for simplicity.
..
+5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.
..
+5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.
I absolutely agree.
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.
The question is, will a 100% BTS make you unhappy?
We know a lot of the debate was not due to the ratios but due to AGS/PTS being considered.
..
+5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.
I absolutely agree.
Everyone should be heavily invested in BTS. This is the BTS forum, right?
..
+5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.
I absolutely agree.
Everyone should be heavily invested in BTS. This is the BTS forum, right?
Everyone's investment in BTS should be proportionate to how successful they feel the BTS DAC will be.
People have also invested in AGS and will continue to invest in PTS based on how successful they feel future third party DACs (using the Bitshares protocol) will be. On the understand that the social consensus will mean they should get some stake in those future DACs.
I'm in favour of BTS. However I'm in favour of the free market and competition more. The idea that future Third Party DACs (some of which might be direct competitors of BTS) should feel obliged to sharedrop on another DAC (which is fundamentally all BTS is), is something I'd oppose regardless of my stake in BTS. Any snapshot onto BTS should be completely voluntary (i.e. not part of the social consensus) and the case should be made to developers that it's in their best interests to sharedrop on BTS as well as AGS/ PTS.
I think it's important that the principles of Bitshares should not be compromised because we happen to be believe in BTS and be heavily invested in it.
I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS.
Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power. Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio.
Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS. How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!
I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS.
Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power. Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio.
Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS. How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!
The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.
Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.
It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.
I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS.
Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power. Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio.
Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS. How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!
The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.
Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.
It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.
I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:
100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE.
My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good.
This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership.
The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.
After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.
Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.
I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:
100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE.
I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS.
Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power. Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio.
Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS. How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!
The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.
Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.
It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.
I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:
100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE.
My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good.
This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership.
The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.
After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.
Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.
Thank you Bytemaster!
I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:
100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE.
Removing the 1% allocated to Vote? This is surprising. Is this a change in strategy after the Cali meeting? Still a cornerstone of your marketing plans?
I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS.
Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power. Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio.
Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS. How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!
The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.
Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.
It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.
I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:
100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE.
My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good.
This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership.
The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.
After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.
Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.
I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:
100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE.
My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good.
This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership.
I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:
100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE.
My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good.
This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership.
The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.
After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.
Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.
I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:
100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE.
My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good.
This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership.
The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.
After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.
Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.