Initial and maximum total supply is 2 billion.
1. BTS holders 35%
The block to take the snapshot on BTS undecided, BTS being the SuperDAC after the merger. The number of the block will be published after BTS being launched.
To simplify this, the block the merge happening is preferred to be the one BitShares PLAY honoring, but this depend on the details plan from BTS, we need to get the exact snapshot time so that we can inform the exchanges to take snapshot too.
[Update] Market orders and collateral on market will also be honored too, the allocation to collateral will be divided between long and short according to current price feed.
2. AGS holders 10%
3. PTS holders 10%
The block to take the snapshot on PTS is on November 5, 2014. This is also the anniversary snapshot for both BTS and PLAY.
4. Product Crowdfunding 20%
The start time and details will be announced later, please stay tuned.
5. Development and Marketing 15%
Long-term development, including a part to cover costs in pre-launch period.
6. Reserved Funds 10%
Reserved fund is for specific purposes including Faucet, Business Development, Game Incubation, long-term ecosystem building. Reserved Fund will be locked on initial launch, and will be linear unlocked monthly after launch in 1 year.
Please refer http://bitsharesplayfoundation.org/ (http://bitsharesplayfoundation.org/) for details.
'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literallyhaha that was a good one!
Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.Agreed. It can change a thousand times and not everyone will be happy. If it were up to me it'd just be pts/ags. Thankfully it's not :P
Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.+5%
Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.
How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.
If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Lastly is it the community's opinion that you won't support any DAC that hasn't gifted the proper respectful amount?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.
If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Angelshares were used as a grant for funding the PLAY dac. There are millions of dollars that were donated at a very real risk to fund development. That kind of support should be valued just as highly as the network effect of BTS holders. BTS holders should not be getting 3 times the allocation in my opinion. The Pre Feb28 windfall was a huge gift. Why are the same people getting a larger share this time? It makes no sense! Not because of a contracted obligation but because this community should recognize those that gifted thousands of BTC to make PLAY possible. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If fairness doesn't interest you how about the basic principle of reciprocity?
The only argument I hear in opposition is once again to stop nagging and just be quiet. Which is an interesting argument. One that I will weigh when considering future support of this community.
How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.
If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Angelshares were used as a grant for funding the PLAY dac. There are millions of dollars that were donated at a very real risk to fund development. That kind of support should be valued just as highly as the network effect of BTS holders. BTS holders should not be getting 3 times the allocation in my opinion. The Pre Feb28 windfall was a huge gift. Why are the same people getting a larger share this time? It makes no sense! Not because of a contracted obligation but because this community should recognize those that gifted thousands of BTC to make PLAY possible. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If fairness doesn't interest you how about the basic principle of reciprocity?
The only argument I hear in opposition is once again to stop nagging and just be quiet. Which is an interesting argument. One that I will weigh when considering future support of this community.
Well thanks for at least listening to me gripe.
Really where does this 35% BTS allocation come from? And who are the people who feel like that's anywhere near a reasonable amount? I haven't heard a single reason why it should be so outsized? Other than personal gain I suppose. I have quite a bit of BTS as well, I just find this allocation to be completely ridiculous. I'm not trying to offend anyone, especially not Hackfisher, but if anything it should be weighted more to where you got your initial funding from. That point cannot be stressed enough.
Hackfisher please reward those people who invested in your project! BTS holders are not going to change much of anything based on you changing the allocation. It is completely unexpected that you would allocate so much to BTS.
...................
My Proposal:
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
..............
Lastly is it the community's opinion that you won't support any DAC that hasn't gifted the proper respectful amount?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
That's the thing AGS donors have already funded PLAY. I think it's deincentivizing the kind of support that is needed the most. I've been very understanding of the changes made by I3 in the past. They always seemed to be as fair and thoughful as possible, and seemingly for the right reasons. This decision seems to be completely arbitrary. It's a departure from what I'm used to from Bitshares. So yes I do not really envision myself supporting PLAY with future funding. I'd rather just passively hold my BTS.
Well thanks for at least listening to me gripe.
Really where does this 35% BTS allocation come from? And who are the people who feel like that's anywhere near a reasonable amount? I haven't heard a single reason why it should be so outsized? Other than personal gain I suppose. I have quite a bit of BTS as well, I just find this allocation to be completely ridiculous. I'm not trying to offend anyone, especially not Hackfisher, but if anything it should be weighted more to where you got your initial funding from. That point cannot be stressed enough.
Hackfisher please reward those people who invested in your project! BTS holders are not going to change much of anything based on you changing the allocation. It is completely unexpected that you would allocate so much to BTS.
It based on the merger proposal, I thought the AGS/PTS (including the AGS after 2.28) has already being merged to BTS, and I remember there is a post mentioning that 3rd DACs should honoring BTS instead of AGS/PTS now, but I can not find it anymore. :'( (someone has the link, please pm it to me)
At last, we decide to honor all of three, but if most people (> 50%) involved in this poll util Wednesday 12:00PM(UTC) think that we need a new proposal for AGS, I will definitely give a new proposal (a promise to delulo on yesterday's mumble).
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg135971#msg135971
&...................
My Proposal:
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
..............
Basically how I understand this decision process is that:
1. Hackfisher doesn't understand how PTS and AGS were never merged.
2. The community is going to vote their pocketbooks, regardless of what is the right thing to do.
Bytemaster said this:Please understand that this allocation is released before the comment from bytemaster. before that, I did not know any details about the source.
"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher. So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me. 10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."
So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.
Bytemaster said this:I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.
"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher. So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me. 10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."
So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.
Basically how I understand this decision process is that:
1. Hackfisher doesn't understand how PTS and AGS were never merged.
2. The community is going to vote their pocketbooks, regardless of what is the right thing to do.
I think that's the gist of it. While BTS gave a healthy and generous airdrop, twice, to the PTS/AGS/DNS/VOTE community there wasn't a buyout.
Most people in the community viewed it as a buyout however and divested in PTS with the expectation their stake in future DACs would come from BTS.
It's my opinion that this is a false assumption and damaging to the community and third party DAC developers looking to do the right thing.
With a liquid PTS, untied to people's investments in other DACS, there will be buying/selling PTS based on the pipeline of upcoming DACs. The market will put a value on the 10% snapshot of the social contract.
Like Godzirra said: This doesn't have to be complicated. What's complicated it is that now everyone wants BTS snapshotted because they feel BTS bought out PTS via airdrop.
Anyway, I'm sounding like a broken record. The value in the airdrop is the community. If the community has decided that a DAC (currently BTS because that's where everyone's money and hope is. Maybe next month it'll be something else) then...eh. It is what it is.
That's the best way to vote out new proposals from many at present.Bytemaster said this:I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.
"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher. So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me. 10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."
So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.
Anybody can register and vote on this poll. This is useless unless one of the mods makes it so that newly registered members can't vote.
That's the best way to vote out new proposals from many at present.Bytemaster said this:I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.
"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher. So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me. 10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."
So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.
Anybody can register and vote on this poll. This is useless unless one of the mods makes it so that newly registered members can't vote.
That's the best way to vote out new proposals from many at present.Bytemaster said this:I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.
"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher. So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me. 10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."
So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.
Anybody can register and vote on this poll. This is useless unless one of the mods makes it so that newly registered members can't vote.
AGS got more than 10%
PTS got more than 10%
BTS got something like 35%
It's a fair allocation imo.
Would I find fair an allocation of 20-20-15% ? yeah that would be a fair allocation too but the point is that now we have an official allocation and you are asking to change it for no good reason imo.
I also find it hard for someone that invested after 28th of February to be all in PTS/AGS and to not have any bts, in any case you got more than the minimum 10% so there is no reason to complain for anything.
I could say that current allocation "punishes" all bts dumpers and this is something I like!
I hold double the amount of bts than I had from 28th February snapshot and also I have 6x more PTS/AGS now than then(80% is AGS) I dont know which allocation will profit me more but I know that If I had sold-dumped the majority of my bts I would be really pissed off with current allocation.
..... There was no merger of AGS!!!
This community has always been able to pivot and adapt to what is right. It's frustrating at times as well but that willingness to admit that the course needed to be altered is something I think is a strength not a weakness. I don't actually care about the allocation (as I have all types of Bitshares products) so much as I do that PLAY and Hackfisher seem unable or unwilling to admit a mistake and just correct it. This is troubling to me. I do not see this ending well.I admit my mistake on that I didn't know that AGS(as a social contract) is no longer being merged to BTS any more, but I also want to admit there were mess on the forum that ideas can not clearly spread out here.
This community has always been able to pivot and adapt to what is right. It's frustrating at times as well but that willingness to admit that the course needed to be altered is something I think is a strength not a weakness. I don't actually care about the allocation (as I have all types of Bitshares products) so much as I do that PLAY and Hackfisher seem unable or unwilling to admit a mistake and just correct it. This is troubling to me. I do not see this ending well.I admit my mistake on that I didn't know that AGS(as a social contract) is no longer being merged to BTS any more, but I also want to admit there were mess on the forum that ideas can not clearly spread out here.
So I want this decision be carefully made, so people out here, QQ groups, Exchanges btc38 discussion, and others can also know this changes.
Original post:Initial and maximum total supply is 2 billion.
1. BTS holders 35%
The block to take the snapshot on BTS undecided, BTS being the SuperDAC after the merger. The number of the block will be published after BTS being launched.
To simplify this, the block the merge happening is preferred to be the one BitShares PLAY honoring, but this depend on the details plan from BTS, we need to get the exact snapshot time so that we can inform the exchanges to take snapshot too.
[Update] Market orders and collateral on market will also be honored too, the allocation to collateral will be divided between long and short according to current price feed.
2. AGS holders 10%
3. PTS holders 10%
The block to take the snapshot on PTS is on November 5, 2014. This is also the anniversary snapshot for both BTS and PLAY.
4. Product Crowdfunding 20%
The start time and details will be announced later, please stay tuned.
5. Development and Marketing 15%
Long-term development, including a part to cover costs in pre-launch period.
6. Reserved Funds 10%
Reserved fund is for specific purposes including Faucet, Business Development, Game Incubation, long-term ecosystem building. Reserved Fund will be locked on initial launch, and will be linear unlocked monthly after launch in 1 year.
Please refer http://bitsharesplayfoundation.org/ (http://bitsharesplayfoundation.org/) for details.
I do not consider this to be "fair".
The reasoning:
- ASG/PTS in BTS are only AGS before February 28th and the 7% from the merger increase the AGS/PTS share in PLAY from 10% to 12.5% only.
- The common sense assumption for AGS after Feb 28th donations was that those donators would get most of everything besides BTS. Now that is dumped for the bigger network effect BTS brings.
- The network effect of BTS holders would not be dramatically reduced if they get 20% instead of 35 %.
- AGS after Feb 28th contributed the most to the funding of the developement of PLAY.
Bytemaster's proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11140.msg148524#msg148524
Bring forward all your arguments :) Don't be afraid to speak up. A robust consensus is necessary to discuss it once and then let it rest so we can then all support PLAY.
Disclosure: I donated more to AGS after Feb 28th than before. I did not sell any BTSX/BTS.
How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.
If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Angelshares were used as a grant for funding the PLAY dac. There are millions of dollars that were donated at a very real risk to fund development. That kind of support should be valued just as highly as the network effect of BTS holders. BTS holders should not be getting 3 times the allocation in my opinion. The Pre Feb28 windfall was a huge gift. Why are the same people getting a larger share this time? It makes no sense! Not because of a contracted obligation but because this community should recognize those that gifted thousands of BTC to make PLAY possible. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If fairness doesn't interest you how about the basic principle of reciprocity?
The only argument I hear in opposition is once again to stop nagging and just be quiet. Which is an interesting argument. One that I will weigh when considering future support of this community.
How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.
If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Angelshares were used as a grant for funding the PLAY dac. There are millions of dollars that were donated at a very real risk to fund development. That kind of support should be valued just as highly as the network effect of BTS holders. BTS holders should not be getting 3 times the allocation in my opinion. The Pre Feb28 windfall was a huge gift. Why are the same people getting a larger share this time? It makes no sense! Not because of a contracted obligation but because this community should recognize those that gifted thousands of BTC to make PLAY possible. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If fairness doesn't interest you how about the basic principle of reciprocity?
The only argument I hear in opposition is once again to stop nagging and just be quiet. Which is an interesting argument. One that I will weigh when considering future support of this community.
What has the PTS/AGS community done that makes them deserve stake forever? If they want to get sharedropped more, they need to unite and show why the PTS/AGS model deserves to remain. Other than, of course, saying they made it possible. Everyone else made it possible too by buying in.
If you want sharedrops, work together as PTS/AGS and provide value above and beyond what everyone else does. Work as a unit. You have all had plenty of time to utilize each others skills to create something that would be truly EPIC and historically precedent-setting. Something worthy of being sharedropped on for all eternity.
What have you done bit expect it without really showing you can create this precedent? Invictus has more than honored their end considering they are no longer invictus. They have given you all more than 10% in every DAC they have made.
Now it is time to work for the respect of 3rd party devs.
Regardless of the whether the allocation changes or not, this issue has been divisive. Delulo, godzirra - you realise you are arguing over a 55% stake, while BM mentioned there is no need for the remaining 45% stake to be allotted elsewhere?
Instead of the infighting, unite and request Hackfisher for the following distribution - 50% non-vested BTS, 50% AGS+PTS, and paid delegates through dilution (basically asking for 15% extra for each group - no need to take away from one to give to another).
Regardless of the whether the allocation changes or not, this issue has been divisive. Delulo, godzirra - you realise you are arguing over a 55% stake, while BM mentioned there is no need for the remaining 45% stake to be allotted elsewhere?
Instead of the infighting, unite and request Hackfisher for the following distribution - 50% non-vested BTS, 50% AGS+PTS, and paid delegates through dilution (basically asking for 15% extra for each group - no need to take away from one to give to another).
How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.
If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Angelshares were used as a grant for funding the PLAY dac. There are millions of dollars that were donated at a very real risk to fund development. That kind of support should be valued just as highly as the network effect of BTS holders. BTS holders should not be getting 3 times the allocation in my opinion. The Pre Feb28 windfall was a huge gift. Why are the same people getting a larger share this time? It makes no sense! Not because of a contracted obligation but because this community should recognize those that gifted thousands of BTC to make PLAY possible. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If fairness doesn't interest you how about the basic principle of reciprocity?
The only argument I hear in opposition is once again to stop nagging and just be quiet. Which is an interesting argument. One that I will weigh when considering future support of this community.
What has the PTS/AGS community done that makes them deserve stake forever? If they want to get sharedropped more, they need to unite and show why the PTS/AGS model deserves to remain. Other than, of course, saying they made it possible. Everyone else made it possible too by buying in.
If you want sharedrops, work together as PTS/AGS and provide value above and beyond what everyone else does. Work as a unit. You have all had plenty of time to utilize each others skills to create something that would be truly EPIC and historically precedent-setting. Something worthy of being sharedropped on for all eternity.
What have you done bit expect it without really showing you can create this precedent? Invictus has more than honored their end considering they are no longer invictus. They have given you all more than 10% in every DAC they have made.
Now it is time to work for the respect of 3rd party devs.
Think of pts not as a coin but a simple share drop target people can buy and sell.
If someone thinks BTS is all that and a bag of chips? Great, balance your desire for a piece of future DACs with your belief in an existing one.
I always viewed PTS as a token that pays a dividend in the form of share drops. The devs in return get a community of folks chomping at the bit to test, discuss, host, evangelize, and generally do what everyone is doing now for BTS.
It was never about payback or respect for founders, etc. It is just a unique type of token that served a specific purpose. If a dev thought they had a killer idea they could buy cheap PTS and then promote their idea to build interest in a share drop and increase the price of PTS as people evaluated the DAC.
Or we can keep putting devs through the grinder while they negotiate percentages for weeks rather than working on the DAC.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
You have that right. It comes down to what do we consider "the community". Is it just this forum? Just true believers in DAC technology? Or all of crypto?
I think share drops to other coins is great if the devs think that will get them the support they need.
Point being while I feel pts has a use as being a prepackaged collection of believers I don't think anyone owes it anything. All I can do is promote a token I feel solves the current issue.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Fair enough. So what's your plan?You have that right. It comes down to what do we consider "the community". Is it just this forum? Just true believers in DAC technology? Or all of crypto?
I think share drops to other coins is great if the devs think that will get them the support they need.
Point being while I feel pts has a use as being a prepackaged collection of believers I don't think anyone owes it anything. All I can do is promote a token I feel solves the current issue.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
So it comes down to community and you have great potential. But are you guys really making it count, working together and using eachothers skills as building blocks to the land of EPIC hall of fame sharedrop-worthiness? or betting on magic to fly in rainbows out of Invictus asses and make it so? Instead of complaining about who gets more, work to prove who deserves more. Right now as I see it, a few are doing well...alone or in very small isolated groups. But it is going to take much more than that...and your competition is not waiting for the founders to figure this out.
Not a PTS/AGS founder. So i dont worry about it. Im just saying people who vare about having PTS/AGS sharedropped on need to work together to make it so.I think why that is going to be met with resistance is that people bought in when BM was just some kooky guy on Bitcoin Talk with some crazy ideas. The premise was a token that was a Proto Type, a template, of all future DACs. So it's understandable people get a bit bent out of shape about allocations (though it's getting a bit silly).
How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.
That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.
If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Angelshares were used as a grant for funding the PLAY dac. There are millions of dollars that were donated at a very real risk to fund development. That kind of support should be valued just as highly as the network effect of BTS holders. BTS holders should not be getting 3 times the allocation in my opinion. The Pre Feb28 windfall was a huge gift. Why are the same people getting a larger share this time? It makes no sense! Not because of a contracted obligation but because this community should recognize those that gifted thousands of BTC to make PLAY possible. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If fairness doesn't interest you how about the basic principle of reciprocity?
The only argument I hear in opposition is once again to stop nagging and just be quiet. Which is an interesting argument. One that I will weigh when considering future support of this community.
What has the PTS/AGS community done that makes them deserve stake forever? If they want to get sharedropped more, they need to unite and show why the PTS/AGS model deserves to remain. Other than, of course, saying they made it possible. Everyone else made it possible too by buying in.
If you want sharedrops, work together as PTS/AGS and provide value above and beyond what everyone else does. Work as a unit. You have all had plenty of time to utilize each others skills to create something that would be truly EPIC and historically precedent-setting. Something worthy of being sharedropped on for all eternity.
What have you done bit expect it without really showing you can create this precedent? Invictus has more than honored their end considering they are no longer invictus. They have given you all more than 10% in every DAC they have made.
Now it is time to work for the respect of 3rd party devs.
Think of pts not as a coin but a simple share drop target people can buy and sell.
If someone thinks BTS is all that and a bag of chips? Great, balance your desire for a piece of future DACs with your belief in an existing one.
I always viewed PTS as a token that pays a dividend in the form of share drops. The devs in return get a community of folks chomping at the bit to test, discuss, host, evangelize, and generally do what everyone is doing now for BTS.
It was never about payback or respect for founders, etc. It is just a unique type of token that served a specific purpose. If a dev thought they had a killer idea they could buy cheap PTS and then promote their idea to build interest in a share drop and increase the price of PTS as people evaluated the DAC.
Or we can keep putting devs through the grinder while they negotiate percentages for weeks rather than working on the DAC.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Im looking for specifics. What do PTS/AGS give developers that other communities (like, say, doge) dont give better? Im not doubting talent or capability. Just asking for examples of what the AGS/PTS community give that is unique. If it is an understanding of DACs that is fast fading and will not be around long.
It's sort of like buying bitUSD because of the yield and then delegates asking what you've done lately to deserve it.
Anyway, that was the idea but things change. Some people are having a hard time letting it go. I won't name names ^-^
AGS created the toolkit. AGS gave Hackfisher his grant.
Why did not AGS get higher allocation? 1. Hackfisher did not know that his whole grant came from AGS. 2. Hackfisher thought that one were supposed to drop on BTS. 3. People have an inbred idea that PTS and AGS always should get the same allocation.
Conclusion: AGS should get a higher allocation than both PTS and BTS.
This is alway the situation that can not please everyone, let's the community decide it through poll.
This is alway the situation that can not please everyone, let's the community decide it through poll.
You're still relying on the poll? Look at the new user signups, just registering to vote. I am baffled that you don't get the simple fact that anybody with economic interests will register a lot of shills and vote.
Besides, the poll is not exhaustive, there should be other options.
Also, have you thought of allotting more and then paying through dilution? I3 was basically following your model earlier and then changed to the current one, why repeat the same?
Regarding poll, do you have any better solutions to represent the community consensus?
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.
But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.
Regarding poll, do you have any better solutions to represent the community consensus?
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.
But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.
See my edit in the above post, the poll is worthless. The solution? Ask the mods to remove all votes from members who signed up in the last 24 hours and make it so that only older users can vote. If that is not possible ask everybody to post their votes rather than vote.
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.
But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.
But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.
I see there is 15% for marketing and development, 20% for crowdfunding, 10% reserved. Basically you are alloting 45% for development and marketing under various heads. Thats a huge percentage, most of which can be used to increase the stakes to keep everyone happy. In fact, as you are being funded by AGS funds, one can claim that the 20% crowdfunding should go straight to AGS, and you still will have 25% left for more funding.
At this point the only solution that would work is the one which doesn't decrease anybody's stake. You can increase AGS and PTS allocation, but not decrease BTS, as that will lead to another round of arguments. Good thing you have kept 45% reserved for development and marketing.
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.
But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.
I see there is 15% for marketing and development, 20% for crowdfunding, 10% reserved. Basically you are alloting 45% for development and marketing under various heads. Thats a huge percentage, most of which can be used to increase the stakes to keep everyone happy. In fact, as you are being funded by AGS funds, one can claim that the 20% crowdfunding should go straight to AGS, and you still will have 25% left for more funding.
At this point the only solution that would work is the one which doesn't decrease anybody's stake. You can increase AGS and PTS allocation, but not decrease BTS, as that will lead to another round of arguments. Good thing you have kept 45% reserved for development and marketing.
Why not just fork PLAY, and give the allocation as you like, that's better.
I see there is 15% for marketing and development, 20% for crowdfunding, 10% reserved. Basically you are alloting 45% for development and marketing under various heads. Thats a huge percentage, most of which can be used to increase the stakes to keep everyone happy. In fact, as you are being funded by AGS funds, one can claim that the 20% crowdfunding should go straight to AGS, and you still will have 25% left for more funding.
At this point the only solution that would work is the one which doesn't decrease anybody's stake. You can increase AGS and PTS allocation, but not decrease BTS, as that will lead to another round of arguments. Good thing you have kept 45% reserved for development and marketing.
Why not just fork PLAY, and give the allocation as you like, that's better.
I always think that exchanging arguments is never bad and that is how this should be seen. A divide in perspectives / positions does not mean a divide in the community. Ideas and systems (and allocation models) thrive when they are challenged.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. ~Bill Cosby
QuoteI don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. ~Bill Cosby
QuoteI don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. ~Bill Cosby
Interesting timing w the Bill Cosby quote
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
QuoteI don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. ~Bill Cosby
Interesting timing w the Bill Cosby quote
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe. Also not raping women.
Why not just fork PLAY, and give the allocation as you like, that's better.
-5 %
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
I still have yet the hear any logical reason why BTS should be share dropped 3x more than AGS. AGS people are being labeled as greedy and divisive and harassing. Honestly it's those who want 3x more than AGS who are to blame for this ridiculous situation. BTS holders should just let Hackfisher correct his mistake. Imo BTS holders who want 3x are being extremely selfish in voting yes to the poll.QuoteI don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. ~Bill Cosby
Interesting timing w the Bill Cosby quote
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe. Also not raping women.
lol....jesus. I have shit I'm actually trying to get done...buzzing on some coffee to stay awake and you made me spit it out with that little jest.Why not just fork PLAY, and give the allocation as you like, that's better.
-5 %
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
I am actually a little bit concerned here....
Hack is only "expected" to honor PTS/AGS 10% and 10%. Instead of seeing a bunch of people who are thrilled to get over that, I see people giving him hell.
Under the old social consensus, 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS could be met and the Dev would be able to keep the rest for himself...not that he did this mind you. But the PTS and AGS holders who would get this sharedrop would likely sell their shares right out of the door because of the bad distribution. However...I do not see a bad distribution here.
Please explain why it is so bad. Oh...and mind you, I donated most of my AGS funds after the feb 28 snapshot so I am kind of getting screwed too if I am thinking about "fairness".
I think Hack is right. Fork it! Sharedrop in the way that suits you! Or hire someone to fork it and do the sharedrop!
P.S. this is not being stated because hack is giving us funds to start our own tournament...
IFIFY :Pinvesteddonated most of my BTC to AGS (after Feb. 2014).
I invested most of my BTC to AGS (after Feb. 2014).
With the AGS holder's donation, PLAY could be available.
And AGS holder are not greedy but very reasonable to get more allocation for PLAY than BTS holder.
:( :(
I still have yet the hear any logical reason why BTS should be share dropped 3x more than AGSThere is no need to be one, the only restriction is to give 10% to AGS and PTS and do with the remaining 80% as they see fit. You may think that AGS should get 20% and I might think that AGS should get 40%, who is right and who is wrong?
AGS people are being labeled as greedy and divisive and harassing.I don't think so, but I could say that there is the probability that some people just want a bigger piece of the pie no matter what, we can't eliminate this.
Honestly it's those who want 3x more than AGS who are to blame for this ridiculous situation.No, this percentage was given to them and its some other people that want to get it away from them, its some of the AGS holders want more than what is offered to them.
BTS holders should just let Hackfisher correct his mistake.With another "mistake"?
Imo BTS holders who want 3x are being extremely selfish in voting yes to the poll.As I mentioned above its not the bts holders that want something but some of the AGS holders that want more.
Trying to have a reasonable conversation with you is exhausting.