0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Note: as market cap grows dilution percentages can fall even as spending increases.... as the system matures fees can cover operating expenses and growth.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 09:48:28 pmYou are correct... so we can just make it 50 BTS per block which is *EVEN BETTER* This is a good amount.It is lower than bitcoin inflation rate, for sure. It seems that this is around an 8% inflation rate.
You are correct... so we can just make it 50 BTS per block which is *EVEN BETTER*
Quote from: Mysto on October 21, 2014, 04:53:13 pmI personally don't think there should be a hard cap. We don't know what the future holds and we don't know if maybe 20 years down the line we will need DCI (Delegated Capital Infusion) for something very large scale and important. A fixed percent a year is fine but a hard cap is not imo.The hard cap is like the "debt ceiling of the US government".... they can raise it any time the like but it requires more work and public debate like a hard fork. So we set a budget for BTSX of 10% per year... $5 million at todays cap... the only conceivable reason for increasing the limit is if the value crashed further and the people still committed to the project needed paid. If the value goes up then the spending ability will grow with it. So I like the "bitcoin style cap".... a maximum number of shares per block to be issued... it will decrease as a percentage of the whole. Bitcoin started with 50 BTC and is now at 25.... I suggest we set ours at 2,500 BTS per block as this is very close to what BTC is doing now.
I personally don't think there should be a hard cap. We don't know what the future holds and we don't know if maybe 20 years down the line we will need DCI (Delegated Capital Infusion) for something very large scale and important. A fixed percent a year is fine but a hard cap is not imo.
Quote from: roadkill on October 21, 2014, 09:39:20 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 09:17:03 pmI take that back.. we should set it at 500 BTS per block max delegate pay. Most delegates will be elected with 1% pay or less.What's wrong with my numbers?BTC: (25 BTC * 24 hours * 6 blocks/hr) / 13,000,000 = 0.027% inflation per dayBTS: (500 BTS * 24 hours * 60 minutes * 6 blocks/min) / 2,500,000,000 = 0.173% inflation per dayedit: With these numbers, 78 BTS per block would be approximately equal to bitcoin's rateYou are correct... so we can just make it 50 BTS per block which is *EVEN BETTER*
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 09:17:03 pmI take that back.. we should set it at 500 BTS per block max delegate pay. Most delegates will be elected with 1% pay or less.What's wrong with my numbers?BTC: (25 BTC * 24 hours * 6 blocks/hr) / 13,000,000 = 0.027% inflation per dayBTS: (500 BTS * 24 hours * 60 minutes * 6 blocks/min) / 2,500,000,000 = 0.173% inflation per dayedit: With these numbers, 78 BTS per block would be approximately equal to bitcoin's rate
I take that back.. we should set it at 500 BTS per block max delegate pay. Most delegates will be elected with 1% pay or less.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 06:11:26 pmI suggest we set ours at 2,500 BTS per block as this is very close to what BTC is doing now. I love this idea! Yes!!!Its like the block reward that everyone already understands, yet "we can use the money on useful things". It also protects against some bug or scam or something immediately diluting the entire 10% for the year at once! It has to be spread out over time, so that if shareholders dont like it anymore (because they dont see value in the moneybeing spent), they can vote it down and stop more dilution from occuring.
I suggest we set ours at 2,500 BTS per block as this is very close to what BTC is doing now.
I would be in favor of a degrading cap. The purpose of these capitol infusions is to reach network effect. Similar to how a Rocket has stages for attaining escape velocity. The capital infusion stage should be curtailed and ultimately dropped or near 0%.Once safely outside the earths strong gravitational forces there should be little need for massive infusion. Any necessary funding can come from delegate pay at that point. So how long a window is safe to say we should be well on our way to mars?10 years?
I would look to increase value instead of dilute.
Quote from: stuartcharles on October 21, 2014, 03:39:08 pmQuote from: Rune on October 21, 2014, 03:29:00 pmQuote from: stuartcharles on October 21, 2014, 03:26:56 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 02:09:28 pmQuote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule. I absolutely agree, this is as much about market confidence as anything. The cap of 22 million bitcoins has become sacred, everyone knows that know one in there right mind would consider changing it. To gain the absolute confidence of investers, public and users we need some things to be sacred. A hard coded cap and dilution rate along with a statement from dev's that this was iron cast would add a ton of confidence to BTSNoIt can be hard to understand, but I think the easiest way to explain it is bitcoin = gold 2.0, bitshares = stocks 2.0That dose not explain your "no" to me. I will need a lot more than that to be convinced that a set of clear rules arnt important. Blockchain technology lives outside the law and regulations so it does need some rules built in.Companies typically have "by-laws" that control how the board of directors must operate...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-lawThey can be thought of as meta-laws but the directors are given the authority to make day-to-day business deals. The shareholders get to elect the directors and vote on any changes to the meta-laws (bylaws).
Quote from: Rune on October 21, 2014, 03:29:00 pmQuote from: stuartcharles on October 21, 2014, 03:26:56 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 02:09:28 pmQuote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule. I absolutely agree, this is as much about market confidence as anything. The cap of 22 million bitcoins has become sacred, everyone knows that know one in there right mind would consider changing it. To gain the absolute confidence of investers, public and users we need some things to be sacred. A hard coded cap and dilution rate along with a statement from dev's that this was iron cast would add a ton of confidence to BTSNoIt can be hard to understand, but I think the easiest way to explain it is bitcoin = gold 2.0, bitshares = stocks 2.0That dose not explain your "no" to me. I will need a lot more than that to be convinced that a set of clear rules arnt important. Blockchain technology lives outside the law and regulations so it does need some rules built in.
Quote from: stuartcharles on October 21, 2014, 03:26:56 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 02:09:28 pmQuote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule. I absolutely agree, this is as much about market confidence as anything. The cap of 22 million bitcoins has become sacred, everyone knows that know one in there right mind would consider changing it. To gain the absolute confidence of investers, public and users we need some things to be sacred. A hard coded cap and dilution rate along with a statement from dev's that this was iron cast would add a ton of confidence to BTSNoIt can be hard to understand, but I think the easiest way to explain it is bitcoin = gold 2.0, bitshares = stocks 2.0
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 02:09:28 pmQuote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule. I absolutely agree, this is as much about market confidence as anything. The cap of 22 million bitcoins has become sacred, everyone knows that know one in there right mind would consider changing it. To gain the absolute confidence of investers, public and users we need some things to be sacred. A hard coded cap and dilution rate along with a statement from dev's that this was iron cast would add a ton of confidence to BTS
Quote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule.
for this thread.
Quote from: Rune on October 21, 2014, 03:29:00 pmQuote from: stuartcharles on October 21, 2014, 03:26:56 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 02:09:28 pmQuote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule. I absolutely agree, this is as much about market confidence as anything. The cap of 22 million bitcoins has become sacred, everyone knows that know one in there right mind would consider changing it. To gain the absolute confidence of investers, public and users we need some things to be sacred. A hard coded cap and dilution rate along with a statement from dev's that this was iron cast would add a ton of confidence to BTSNoIt can be hard to understand, but I think the easiest way to explain it is bitcoin = gold 2.0, bitshares = stocks 2.0Yeah, what's the most optimal inflationary model for a company? It's definitely important to keep the "coin vs. share" metaphor in mind when deciding on whatever model we choose. Perhaps it would be best to start analyzing what real world corporations do... Look at some case studies.EDIT: While taking into consideration the point stuartcharles made: this is a crypto company. Should cryptos have hard coded limits? Why or why not?
Quote from: gamey on October 21, 2014, 03:16:09 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 21, 2014, 02:16:49 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 02:09:28 pmQuote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule. Bitcoins dilution schedule may limit us in the distant future. Maybe we will at some point need capital infusion 30 years from now and because of a hard cap, it can't be done. A limit of X% dilution per 1,000,000 blocks may make more sense. I'm neutral either way.I wouldn't worry about it too much. Think about what a hard cap really means and how it is enforced. Others - Think about keeping it capped at bitcoin's rate. People are quick to dismiss that idea, but it becomes a lot easier sell externally when we can now point to this huge distinction that we don't dilute as much as bitcoin AND all the money goes into productivity and not needless energy consumption. I agree it is a fantastic way to frame the conversation. We're taking a "negative" and turning it into a positive. "Bitshares is just as inflationary as Bitcoin but our inflation gets spent on growth and infrastructure."I guess the question we should be asking is, what is the most optimal inflationary model? Is it exactly Bitcoins? We should put lots of thought and discussion into this before coming to any hard conclusions.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 21, 2014, 02:16:49 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 02:09:28 pmQuote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule. Bitcoins dilution schedule may limit us in the distant future. Maybe we will at some point need capital infusion 30 years from now and because of a hard cap, it can't be done. A limit of X% dilution per 1,000,000 blocks may make more sense. I'm neutral either way.I wouldn't worry about it too much. Think about what a hard cap really means and how it is enforced. Others - Think about keeping it capped at bitcoin's rate. People are quick to dismiss that idea, but it becomes a lot easier sell externally when we can now point to this huge distinction that we don't dilute as much as bitcoin AND all the money goes into productivity and not needless energy consumption.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 02:09:28 pmQuote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:02:23 pm for this thread.I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule. Bitcoins dilution schedule may limit us in the distant future. Maybe we will at some point need capital infusion 30 years from now and because of a hard cap, it can't be done. A limit of X% dilution per 1,000,000 blocks may make more sense. I'm neutral either way.
Others - Think about keeping it capped at bitcoin's rate. People are quick to dismiss that idea, but it becomes a lot easier sell externally when we can now point to this huge distinction that we don't dilute as much as bitcoin AND all the money goes into productivity and not needless energy consumption.
The threads discussing how inflating delegates work are actually quite old, it was primarily back when BM proposed the bitUSD referral bonus that the mechanics of it was discussed.
Quote from: Rune on October 21, 2014, 01:12:45 pmQuote from: stuartcharles on October 21, 2014, 09:31:12 amI think this part of the proposal is not being discussed enough. The proposal is to allow BTS to be diluted by the issuing of more BTS. In the mumble session BM suggested that a cap could be hard coded. As well as voting on what you think that hard cap should be can we also have a discussion about :-1. what we would consider it acceptable to spend the raised capital on? Development? Marketing? 2. Who should have control of the raised funds?3. how will the amount of dilution be decided upon on a call by call basis? 4. Who can make a call for more shares to be issued?5. Will there be a maximum frequency of share calls hard coded?6. If X% per year is decided upon as a maximum, will we also have a maximum individual share call hard coded? eg if 10% was decided as the hard coded limit for a year should we have a maximum share call within that year hard coded like 2%?These are just a few questions to get the ball rolling, I just think that this part of the proposal is not getting the posts is deserves.You misunderstand how it is going to work. Individual delegates can register as inflating delegates, with a set amount of BTS printed per block. They will have to be voted in as delegates for it to take effect, so stakeholders will always vote on all inflation projects. An example could be a new developer that wants to work full time on making and maintaining an iOS wallet. He would then pitch his project on the forums along the salary he is asking for. The community can then have a dialogue with him and he can amend his project plan after getting feedback. Once his project is ready, he will register a delegate and stakeholders will decide if they want to vote him in or not.Once he has been voted in, he will have to follow the transparency strategy he had in his original plan, and report his progress and spending weekly or monthly or whatever interval he has committed himself to do on these forums. If he misses a commitment, or it comes apparent from his reports that he isn't doing well enough, stakeholders will vote him out again. There'll probably be a very active "vigilante brigade" that will do everything they can to ensure he gets kicked out if he doesn't follow his commitments fully.That seems reasonable, can you point me to the thread where this was discussed. I looked around but couldn't find the debate.
Quote from: stuartcharles on October 21, 2014, 09:31:12 amI think this part of the proposal is not being discussed enough. The proposal is to allow BTS to be diluted by the issuing of more BTS. In the mumble session BM suggested that a cap could be hard coded. As well as voting on what you think that hard cap should be can we also have a discussion about :-1. what we would consider it acceptable to spend the raised capital on? Development? Marketing? 2. Who should have control of the raised funds?3. how will the amount of dilution be decided upon on a call by call basis? 4. Who can make a call for more shares to be issued?5. Will there be a maximum frequency of share calls hard coded?6. If X% per year is decided upon as a maximum, will we also have a maximum individual share call hard coded? eg if 10% was decided as the hard coded limit for a year should we have a maximum share call within that year hard coded like 2%?These are just a few questions to get the ball rolling, I just think that this part of the proposal is not getting the posts is deserves.You misunderstand how it is going to work. Individual delegates can register as inflating delegates, with a set amount of BTS printed per block. They will have to be voted in as delegates for it to take effect, so stakeholders will always vote on all inflation projects. An example could be a new developer that wants to work full time on making and maintaining an iOS wallet. He would then pitch his project on the forums along the salary he is asking for. The community can then have a dialogue with him and he can amend his project plan after getting feedback. Once his project is ready, he will register a delegate and stakeholders will decide if they want to vote him in or not.Once he has been voted in, he will have to follow the transparency strategy he had in his original plan, and report his progress and spending weekly or monthly or whatever interval he has committed himself to do on these forums. If he misses a commitment, or it comes apparent from his reports that he isn't doing well enough, stakeholders will vote him out again. There'll probably be a very active "vigilante brigade" that will do everything they can to ensure he gets kicked out if he doesn't follow his commitments fully.
I think this part of the proposal is not being discussed enough. The proposal is to allow BTS to be diluted by the issuing of more BTS. In the mumble session BM suggested that a cap could be hard coded. As well as voting on what you think that hard cap should be can we also have a discussion about :-1. what we would consider it acceptable to spend the raised capital on? Development? Marketing? 2. Who should have control of the raised funds?3. how will the amount of dilution be decided upon on a call by call basis? 4. Who can make a call for more shares to be issued?5. Will there be a maximum frequency of share calls hard coded?6. If X% per year is decided upon as a maximum, will we also have a maximum individual share call hard coded? eg if 10% was decided as the hard coded limit for a year should we have a maximum share call within that year hard coded like 2%?These are just a few questions to get the ball rolling, I just think that this part of the proposal is not getting the posts is deserves.
We will also have to define what is year. Calendar, fiscal, start, end fate. There's a lot structure that has to be put in place for decision making.