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.


Messages - Agent86

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32
391
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 04:10:30 am »
Quote from: werneo on May 22, 2014, 03:10:10 am
Quote from: Agent86 on May 22, 2014, 02:39:09 am
Quote from: toast on May 22, 2014, 01:14:11 am
Having 100% controlled by i3 would be a disaster

This seems really harsh.  I'm not sure where you are coming from here.  People seem to think the marketing hasn't done much but we haven't really had anything to market yet.  It's not like I3 has blown through a lot of money.  I think there may be a shift as the first products are released and AGS wraps up.

There are also risks to handing out a ton of money to "the community" because there's not really a fair way to do that.
My take:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59090#msg59090

Agent86 -- sometimes I think you talk like I3's mom.

I think the balance of 350k PTS should be burned. If not, the market may finally lose faith in everything I3 has been doing.  If PTS drops another 40%,  the crash in value will scare off new investment and your best developers could walk away.

I just get frustrated with people who can't understand what's going on and accuse I3 of acting like scammers when they are not.

Maybe you are right that the market won't like us to use the PTS as a community fund for marketing, give aways, or promotion.  But maybe they will love it and we can find a way to spend it to drive lots of new people to bitshares.

Stan has already said if there is conflict and the forum is split, the PTS will most likely be burned/mapped out of PTS2.  They were treating these as community funds; they solicited the community for input on how to spend them to drive value for everyone.  Instead people called them scammers and people are acting like Stan wants to sell them and get a Bentley.

If we burn them we burn them, and if you think this gives you the best ROI than make that case and tell us why.  But if you think I3 is dishonest why are you even invested at all?

Perhaps burning them gives you the best ROI, perhaps it's a missed opportunity and it will cost you.  That is the decision here.  And we are all in the same boat!  We sink or soar as a community.

Ok, maybe there is a small difference between those who are primarily in AGS vs PTS but for the most part we are all in the same boat and I3 is in the boat with us, and they built the boat, we all want this to be huge.

Full disclosure, I don't have much sympathy for people in PTS freaking out about not getting a 15% bump in stake when they can go get a much larger return by donating to AGS.

I agree that if we don't use them carefully they would be better off burned.  But I also have an open mind to the possibilities

392
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 02:39:09 am »
Quote from: toast on May 22, 2014, 01:14:11 am
Having 100% controlled by i3 would be a disaster

This seems really harsh.  I'm not sure where you are coming from here.  People seem to think the marketing hasn't done much but we haven't really had anything to market yet.  It's not like I3 has blown through a lot of money.  I think there may be a shift as the first products are released and AGS wraps up.

There are also risks to handing out a ton of money to "the community" because there's not really a fair way to do that.
My take:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59090#msg59090

393
General Discussion / Re: DAC employees
« on: May 22, 2014, 01:23:02 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on May 22, 2014, 01:00:18 am
The challenge is allocating other peoples money.   

My suggestion would be to fund employees from revenue rather than via inflation.

Ok, I guess I'm thinking of revenue as the transaction fees destroyed, so basically shares destroyed are revenue and then you pay employees by issuing new shares so you are right that there wouldn't necessarily be any net inflation.  So I guess it isn't right to specify a positive level of inflation.

Maybe you are also thinking of bitUSD or bitGLD transaction fees as people transact in those assets is the revenue, and then we can pay employees in bitUSD?

So instead of selling the bitUSD transaction fees and destroying the BTS, the DAC could keep bitUSD on hand as a cash balance to pay employees?

Is this sort of what you are thinking?  When you say revenue do you mean transaction fees or are there other types of revenue?

As far as allocating other people's money, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.

On some level if you are saying that issuing new shares or bitUSD is taking from everyone, I don't think this makes it bad if everyone has a say in it proportional to their stake.

394
BitShares AGS / Re: Crowdfunding using AGS?
« on: May 21, 2014, 06:33:59 pm »
Quote from: asenski on May 21, 2014, 06:26:01 pm
I disagree that the funds must be entirely in control of Invictus. But that's just me. My point is they have not actually decentralized the funding itself.

Ok, so if not invictus, then who gets to make the final decision about where the money goes?  Should it be you?

Should we do a poll on the forum for who to entrust with the money?  I can make 1000 sockpuppets if you like and send all the money to me for my "project".

Should we just give back the funds to the people who donated?  Ok then, I guess I can donate as much as I want because I get it back anyway.

Bottom line:  People donated with the understanding that Invictus would be managing this money for the benefit of the community on behalf of the community.

395
BitShares AGS / Re: Crowdfunding using AGS?
« on: May 21, 2014, 05:51:53 pm »
Quote from: asenski on May 21, 2014, 04:34:57 pm
So what I was getting at and I believe what Adam is getting at is something along the lines of this:

http://www.coindesk.com/new-decentralized-crowdfunding-platform-reshape-bitcoin-landscape/

Invictus has captured the PTS/BTC funds, but has FULL control over what gets funded. However I was hoping this would be a platform where if someone has an idea and the investors believe in it, they would be able to crowd fund it with the allocated funds represented by their AGS/PTS.

I do understand that's not how Invictus business model works. But it is food for thought.

I think ‘assurance contracts’ may be useful for some things.  Such as a very large project or expense.  If you want to do a project, you still need to convince people to give you money and trust you with it, you are just promising if you don't raise enough for the project you will give everyone back their money.  You probably don't need any special technology to make this happen if people take you at your word.

For instance you can say "I want to buy TV spot for bitshares during the super bowl"  Anyone who supports this can send money here: XXXX.  If I don't raise the $500k needed by this date: X/X/X, I will send everyone their money back.

That is all there really is to it.  An automated way of sending back the money if the goal isn't reached is nice, but I don't think it's earth shattering.

Here is my suggestion for community fund raising:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4660.0

BTW:  The funds donated to the AGS address must stay in control of Invictus.  I'm not sure if this was what you were getting at or not, but if everyone who donated could independently decide to take back the money that they donated to give it to whoever they want or spend it however they thought best it wouldn't work at all

Now if AGS became liquid then you could give away your AGS shares to support projects because they are yours to give.

396
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 21, 2014, 04:47:11 pm »
Quote from: donkeypong on May 21, 2014, 04:23:42 pm
How about making a SIMPLE voting DAC to vote on how this money should be spent?

Please see this thread for a potential long term solution on how to vote on how community money is spent:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4660.msg59152#msg59152

basically people can vote on the block chain using their stake in the same way we vote for delegates.  Except employees can issue new shares to fund projects and spend on promotion or development.  (You delegate to someone you trust to make decisions on how to spend community money)

397
General Discussion / Re: DAC employees
« on: May 21, 2014, 04:34:36 pm »
Quote from: luckybit on May 21, 2014, 04:20:27 pm
Several ideas exist for this such as Role Based Bounties and I think the Memorycoin team implemented exactly something like this.

It's a good idea to let DACs hire but we need to have an effective way of voting. It's actually harder to hire for long term role based bounties than for short jobs which can be easily defined in a smart contract.
The point of my post was to propose a potential effective way of voting.  You vote using your stake on the blockchain just like we have to vote for delegates.

The normal way these bounties seem to work is people ask for donations on a forum to fund a particular project, or the developer uses IPO money or a "premine" and then the developer gets to decide how it is spent until the money is all gone.

My proposal is different and more decentralized, it gives everyone a say and makes everyone chip in, it gives DACs the flexibility of issuing new shares.

398
General Discussion / Re: DAC employees
« on: May 21, 2014, 04:03:55 pm »
I'm not familiar with what memory coin is doing in this regard.  I couldn't find it from a quick search so maybe you can fill me in.  I would be surprised if it was very similar but who knows.

399
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 21, 2014, 03:30:46 pm »
Quote from: heyD on May 21, 2014, 03:17:49 pm
Quote from: xeroc on May 21, 2014, 03:00:32 pm
To proof dpos we need a working dpos chain ... so we also need the wallet

I know.

But I am not clear about what exactly Stan meant. There are so many terms which can easily cause confusion.

The 'XT' may be the XT wallet and P2P network based on DPOS that will be released in the coming weeks, and also may be the whole XT product that will be after Me in the coming months.

So which one？

I think you might be confusing Bitshares XT with Bitshares X.  Bitshares XT is the soon to be released "test" chain (that is what the T stands for) for the final product Bitshares X.

400
General Discussion / DAC employees
« on: May 21, 2014, 02:31:54 pm »
I want to propose a way for a DAC to have ongoing funds to do development and promotion in a democratic way, without designating a specific portion in the beginning or begging the community for donations.

Just like DACs elect delegates to write blocks… DACs could also elect employees (such as paid developers).

How it works:
Right now every spent output is assigned to a delegate (for/against).
You could make it so every spent output assigns a desired inflation rate… e.g. 2% and designates (for or against) a key for a potential employee.

The median of all specified inflation rates is taken e.g. 2% and then the elected employee/employees are granted the power to issue new shares at a maximum rate of 2% per year (proportional also to the amount of stake supporting them).

If you don't think the community needs paid employees, you just set your vote to 0% inflation.  If more than 50% of the stake doesn't want employees with power to issue shares than there will be no employees (median inflation would be 0%). If someone says they want 100% inflation it doesn't matter because it takes the median.

Employees will be judged on how much money they use and how effectively they use it.  They will all need to maintain a public ledger of where the money goes if they want any credibility and they can be fired in a heartbeat.  They can only issue new shares slowly over time so they have no way to make a big money grab.

EDIT 6/18:  Voting method
The voting method for employees I propose to be "approval voting."  There are no down-votes and no restriction on how many different employees you can vote for using your stake.  Not voting for an employee indicates you do not support that employee.  Along with your vote for an employee you indicate an appropriate annual salary in bips (gets paid out daily).  Only an employee with over 50% support from the DAC will end up being paid.  Their salary is the median voted by stake (people who did not vote for the employee are included in the median as voting for a "0" salary).

Any "inactive stake" (no transactions for over 1 year and paid inactivity penalty) should be removed from the voting algorithm.

401
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 21, 2014, 01:45:24 pm »
PTS2 seems fine to me.  Maybe after some time assuming PTS1 dies people will just end up calling it PTS.

402
General Discussion / Re: Rest in Peace, DA
« on: May 21, 2014, 12:30:49 pm »
Quote from: CLains on May 21, 2014, 12:07:09 pm
http://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=11m40s
+5%

403
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 21, 2014, 12:10:43 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on May 21, 2014, 11:32:59 am

I am afraid of the public opinion calling these 15% a premine (which its is, if 3i holds the privkey)   thus will tank the price imo.

We should really consider a community fund.

Who exactly defines the community?

I invested because I trust I3 to make good decisions on behalf of the community.  They also take community feedback and take it into consideration (I think that was the original intent of this thread.)
Everyone who invested must have had some faith in them to do this.

Who gets to define who controls a "community fund" or who is the "community"?

Is someone with a large stake who doesn't post on the forum part of the community?  What about someone who posts a lot on the forum but may have a small stake and a bigger stake in competitors?

I didn't invest to have money spent and decisions made by a democratic poll of forum trolls, sockpuppets, the uninformed, the easily influenced, the wolves in sheep's clothing etc.

404
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 21, 2014, 11:37:52 am »
Quote from: Mako on May 21, 2014, 11:04:54 am
pts1 and pts2 co-exist will lead to many  serious problems.

THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED!!

For anyone who is struggling to understand: all this is is an upgrade to PTS to get rid of mining. 

This is needed and has been expected for a long time.

The way Stan has proposed is the logical way to do this.

Stan is just describing the process in precise terms to let you know he is not a dictator and can't make everyone do something: he can't go to your house and make you stop mining PTS.  He can't put a gun to your head and tell you what to buy and what to sell.  In theory anyone can release a DAC or coin that honors any percentage of any chain they like, but in practice no one is going to honor PTS after PTS2 is released.  I3 will recommend DACs honor a minimum 10% to AGS and 10% to PTS2.

Here is the dumbed down version:  PTS will be replaced by PTS2.

405
General Discussion / Re: Rest in Peace, DA
« on: May 20, 2014, 07:16:47 pm »
Quote from: Simeon II on May 20, 2014, 04:08:41 pm
Giving 15% to grow the community is good, very good indeed!

Dilution with 15% all current PTS holder is not good BUT PTS holders must be aware of this already, so it is OK!

But the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS  as theirs, as something that belongs to them...
I can somewhat see why you would like PTS to just stop before the originally planned 2million is reached, however...

Stan is not treating them as his own for his personal profit (huge difference).  Stan and bytemaster had to invest their own money to buy personal PTS & AGS to personally profit from the bitshares project.

Yes, certain decision making for the community is somewhat centralized at the moment.  I think most people invest because they trust Invictus to make good decisions on behalf of the community, and understand that they may not agree with everything.

A lot of communities really suffer because they don't have any communal funds that are spent for everyone's benefit... They are left to beg for donations from the community, and those that don't donate kinda get a free ride from the work and donations of others.

Also, my recommendation if you are worried about 15% is to head over to: http://www1.agsexplorer.com/
Make the commitment, stop sitting on the fence! :)

I don't mean to make light of your concern but try to think of the biggest picture.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32

Page created in 0.201 seconds with 23 queries.