Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Price decline hasnt been due to marketing efforts, its mostly been due to lack of delivery of the product.
the perception that BTS can not be trusted to stick with things.
Stick with what? Developers randomly screwing with supply? The loss of confidence caused by that move is probably irreversible. This proposal doesn't change supply, just tries to dampen the damage.
It seems unlikely this would be a net positive. DNS was killed. It can't just be unmerged, so all your thinking is extremely one-sided. Undoing the merger would mean bytemaster would have to somehow make something up to PTS/AGS. If he didn't, then people would be quite irritated. Their AGS funds went into paying BTS developers and now their BTS is conditional? Huh?No one said to undue the merger. We are talking about pausing it or making it conditional. If the Bitshares market cap never goes back up then screw the merger. Do you care about the merger if the market cap goes down indefinitely?
Ok fair enough I got 2 things somewhat mixed up. You are not saying undue the merger, just make it so that people who contributed to AGS can no longer have liquid BTS. You are suggesting only partially undoing the merger... or as you put it "conditionally"Your thoughts on incentives/distributions is so poorly conceived it isn't worth critiquing further. As if AGS investors somehow owe more to BTS. Everytime things have been changed nothing has improved. More changes are not likely to help things outside improved bitassets.
I think the improvement I suggested would change things for the better and no one would be hurt. Everyone should want the market cap to go up but if some people don't then their passive income should be paused until the market cap reaches the threshold.
People who could care less about Bitshares but who get the passive income could simply immediately sell it. Just like Bitcoin miners. I'm not claiming that is happening but why leave it to chance? Why?
Obviously those who can no longer sell their vested BTS are hurt. I don't think I need to explain this. It will be obvious to just about everyone on here. I can't even understand your logic about people who don't want the market cap going up should have their passive income paused.Lets also not allow selling of bts unless the price is greater than X or perhaps we can "freeze" 99% of everyone's bts until the price hits THE MOON or even better we can ask the ripple guys how to do it properly.
Your main concern is the short term price? I believe you already know that price is irrelevant at this point, let those that want to sell to do as they wish, cheap bts for the rest of us and for the rest of the world.
The only real issue I see here is the low delegates pay, nothing else.
If you sold Bitshares it's different because you purchased it, mined for it or earned it. The merger really has nothing to do with people who want to sell Bitshares. The merger was basically a giveaway.
And if it's a justified giveaway shouldn't it be measured for success? Couldn't we have the expectation that there should be some positive result achieved? If it's not about the market cap rising then what is it about?
The other side of this is the value of DNS taken away from people. You can't undo that, but somehow you can take people's BTS so it is fair game? You can't even quantify any of this stuff.I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option. It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people.
Who are those people that are owed vested funds, but don't already own a shitload of BTS and absolutely can't wait a bit until the market recovers? Do they prefer being paid worthless BTS right now or strong BTS in two years?
Tying the rate of vesting to market cap will ensure that inflation is introduced only when the market can handle it. It'll additionally act as a price stabilization mechanism.
EXACTLY!
I can understand a lot of people are able to get BTS right now because of the merger and they can't wait to sell it or cash out but like you said it's very important that the market cap rise.
No one is going to take Bitshares seriously in terms of speculators if the market cap goes down indefinitely. Human psychology doesn't work that way even if the owners of Bitshares can benefit from it going down indefinitely.
So lets make another hair-brained (hare?) change. Then people will take us seriously. Even in terms of the shares added by dilution, the market price has fell far more. I can come up with educated guesses as to why, but no one can assign true weights to them. I assume that 1/4th of the 1/5th dilution total has been freed. That is about 5% inflation.... Why do you even think this is a big factor? People are just desperate and you are arguing for your side, just like when you tried so hard to get us to partner with blackshares.
[/b]
Becoming like the big banks and big governments? Unable to adapt because it might upset someone? So what is the alternative?
The people who are going to sell will sell on the way down. The people who are going to buy will buy in the way up. Haven't you been watching?
But you're a true believer who will not sell even if the market cap went to $1 million.
Unfortunately most people are going to sell before the vesting even completes if that happens so what is the value of it? In the market perception is very important and for a tech firm or for a lifeform adaptation is the key to survival.
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.
This is rediculous. Central banks freeze assets. We do not. I say release all shares and be done with it. Maybe the price will suffer... or maybe not, but we could get that level of uncertainty out of the way.
So why vest them at all. Why not just release them all right now so it can be sold in one big dump and we can be done with it?
It seems unlikely this would be a net positive. DNS was killed. It can't just be unmerged, so all your thinking is extremely one-sided. Undoing the merger would mean bytemaster would have to somehow make something up to PTS/AGS. If he didn't, then people would be quite irritated. Their AGS funds went into paying BTS developers and now their BTS is conditional? Huh?No one said to undue the merger. We are talking about pausing it or making it conditional. If the Bitshares market cap never goes back up then screw the merger. Do you care about the merger if the market cap goes down indefinitely?
Ok fair enough I got 2 things somewhat mixed up. You are not saying undue the merger, just make it so that people who contributed to AGS can no longer have liquid BTS. You are suggesting only partially undoing the merger... or as you put it "conditionally"Your thoughts on incentives/distributions is so poorly conceived it isn't worth critiquing further. As if AGS investors somehow owe more to BTS. Everytime things have been changed nothing has improved. More changes are not likely to help things outside improved bitassets.
I think the improvement I suggested would change things for the better and no one would be hurt. Everyone should want the market cap to go up but if some people don't then their passive income should be paused until the market cap reaches the threshold.
People who could care less about Bitshares but who get the passive income could simply immediately sell it. Just like Bitcoin miners. I'm not claiming that is happening but why leave it to chance? Why?
Obviously those who can no longer sell their vested BTS are hurt. I don't think I need to explain this. It will be obvious to just about everyone on here. I can't even understand your logic about people who don't want the market cap going up should have their passive income paused.Lets also not allow selling of bts unless the price is greater than X or perhaps we can "freeze" 99% of everyone's bts until the price hits THE MOON or even better we can ask the ripple guys how to do it properly.
Your main concern is the short term price? I believe you already know that price is irrelevant at this point, let those that want to sell to do as they wish, cheap bts for the rest of us and for the rest of the world.
The only real issue I see here is the low delegates pay, nothing else.
If you sold Bitshares it's different because you purchased it, mined for it or earned it. The merger really has nothing to do with people who want to sell Bitshares. The merger was basically a giveaway.
And if it's a justified giveaway shouldn't it be measured for success? Couldn't we have the expectation that there should be some positive result achieved? If it's not about the market cap rising then what is it about?
The other side of this is the value of DNS taken away from people. You can't undo that, but somehow you can take people's BTS so it is fair game? You can't even quantify any of this stuff.I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option. It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people.
Who are those people that are owed vested funds, but don't already own a shitload of BTS and absolutely can't wait a bit until the market recovers? Do they prefer being paid worthless BTS right now or strong BTS in two years?
Tying the rate of vesting to market cap will ensure that inflation is introduced only when the market can handle it. It'll additionally act as a price stabilization mechanism.
EXACTLY!
I can understand a lot of people are able to get BTS right now because of the merger and they can't wait to sell it or cash out but like you said it's very important that the market cap rise.
No one is going to take Bitshares seriously in terms of speculators if the market cap goes down indefinitely. Human psychology doesn't work that way even if the owners of Bitshares can benefit from it going down indefinitely.
It seems unlikely this would be a net positive. DNS was killed. It can't just be unmerged, so all your thinking is extremely one-sided. Undoing the merger would mean bytemaster would have to somehow make something up to PTS/AGS. If he didn't, then people would be quite irritated. Their AGS funds went into paying BTS developers and now their BTS is conditional? Huh?Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.
BRILLIANT!
I vote we freeze vesting until it surpasses the minimum market cap. This could even be done with a price feed of the market cap so that it's taken out of developers hands and left up to the market itself.
Call it conditional merger and use the price feed as the oracle. This way the rate of distribution of shares is not predetermined but determined by actual market conditions. The process should freeze whenever the market cap falls below the threshold.
So what was the market cap when the merger first happened? It was a bit higher? So freeze until it gets back to that point and start it again. This way you're not using any arbitrary magic numbers like 24 months but instead a data feed which is a variable number that everyone who is part of the merger would have the incentive to see rise.
The market cap is the one number we all want to see rise.
When I read that I thought the guy must be joking to even propose to change the vesting rule like that...But thinking in it again maybe stop the vesting NOW until we reach again at least $60 mil market cap and stop it again if we fall below $30 mil market cap doesn't look a very bad idea and maybe should be further discussed?
And to add to that maybe we can buy out Music for another $200 - $300 mil BTS (which appears to be a fair market value of Music) with some vesting rules that allow to claim the new created BTS only if the market cap is above $60 mil and stops if it falls below $30 mil?
I can no longer see the line between sincere suggestions and parodies.
The gist of the idea is that all mergers should be conditional mergers going into the future. The idea is anyone we merge with should have the incentive to raise our market cap and keep it raised during the vesting period. If our market cap suffers then they shouldn't get their distributions at the expense of our market cap but if our market cap doesn't suffer then the merger should unfreeze.
This is possible because Bitshares is digital and doesn't have to go by the rules of analog corporations. It can merge in any way it wants with other communities and there is no reason why it had to be done the way it was done.
The incentives of the merger obviously are wrong if people are getting distribution while the market cap is dropping. As a result they'll want to support the merger even if the market cap is dropping because they are getting Bitshares the whole time. If the market cap passes the threshold we can speed up the release.
The point is I don't see why we had to release it on a timeline. We could release it conditionally and have the rate of release adjust to the fluctuations of the market cap.
So it's not a parody, it's a possible solution. Of course if you think it's not possible you can say why not.
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.
BRILLIANT!
I vote we freeze vesting until it surpasses the minimum market cap. This could even be done with a price feed of the market cap so that it's taken out of developers hands and left up to the market itself.
Call it conditional merger and use the price feed as the oracle. This way the rate of distribution of shares is not predetermined but determined by actual market conditions. The process should freeze whenever the market cap falls below the threshold.
So what was the market cap when the merger first happened? It was a bit higher? So freeze until it gets back to that point and start it again. This way you're not using any arbitrary magic numbers like 24 months but instead a data feed which is a variable number that everyone who is part of the merger would have the incentive to see rise.
The market cap is the one number we all want to see rise.
When I read that I thought the guy must be joking to even propose to change the vesting rule like that...But thinking in it again maybe stop the vesting NOW until we reach again at least $60 mil market cap and stop it again if we fall below $30 mil market cap doesn't look a very bad idea and maybe should be further discussed?
And to add to that maybe we can buy out Music for another $200 - $300 mil BTS (which appears to be a fair market value of Music) with some vesting rules that allow to claim the new created BTS only if the market cap is above $60 mil and stops if it falls below $30 mil?
Btw let's do some simple maths to see why mining isn't a problem
Let says we are in 2025 and 1BTC = 100,000$.
Over one year, 3.125*6*24*365 = 164 250 BTC are mined. So that's 16,5 billion of revenue for miners by year.
Today, Internet revenue is 8 trillion/year:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Research-Values-Internet-Revenue-at-8-Trillion-US-Dollars-232894.shtml
It would be interesting to break down this 8 trillion number to see what portion go to the infrastructure (routeurs, cables, servers...) but my guess is that this number is far more than 16,5 billion. Cisco revenue in 2014 is 47 billion, so that makes the point.
Sorry but mining will no be a problem from an economic standpoint, even at 1m$/BTC, just wait 10 years.
The problem is those people treat Satoshi as a god when they should be adjusting his poorly conceived inflation schedule with a hardfork.
Bitcoiners are stupid but they're not that stupid.
I don't follow? I don't think it is very easy to hardfork bitcoin, but do you think adjusting the inflation downwards would be that damaging? It would put off the miners but the reduction in downward price pressure could easily make up for it. Smooth out the blockreward differences...
I agree that mathematically Bitcoin would benefit from adjusting the inflation downwards but even though their flawed supply structure may prove to be their long-term downfall, changing their 21 million Bitcoin supply rules, would mean a transition from being viewed as a digital gold type money (pre-determined supply) to one whose supply is controlled/altered by people and potentially a small group of people at that.
People assign value correctly to and adopt forms of money that require the least trust in people, (Because people can't be trusted & are 'short-termist' ) such as gold, silver and more recently Bitcoin. Altering the pre-determined supply rules would require you to trust people more going forward resulting in substantial value loss.
I think most Bitcoiners and crypto-currency holders understand some version of this general idea/concept and it's unlikely they would risk losing their digital gold status as Bitcoin's value is almost exclusively derived from the use of their tokens as money. (Unlike BTS whose shares now derive value from expectations surrounding the products and services based on it's blockchain like BitAssets.)
