If we go for a pre-sale. It will be an AGS style one only shorter. 30 to 60 days yes.
Auction a day. Pure AGS style!If we go for a pre-sale. It will be an AGS style one only shorter. 30 to 60 days yes.
Will it be day-by-day allocation? (exactly the same as AGS) Or the allocation will be calculated based on the whole period? (Like viacoin presale)
If we go for a pre-sale. It will be a Bitcoin only AGS style one. Only shorter, 30 to 60 days yes.So I guess the PTS/AGS snapshot will be INDEPENDENT of the presale? you launch the presale AFTER the snapshot?
Auction a day. Pure AGS style!If we go for a pre-sale. It will be an AGS style one only shorter. 30 to 60 days yes.
Will it be day-by-day allocation? (exactly the same as AGS) Or the allocation will be calculated based on the whole period? (Like viacoin presale)
If we go for a pre-sale. It will be a Bitcoin only AGS style one. Only shorter, 30 to 60 days yes.
Auction a day. Pure AGS style!
As I can see the AGS style will be best choise, as example:
- Allocate 35% to PTS, 35% to AGS, 30% to a pre-sale
- As AGS: accept only BTC and PTS
- PTS which you will have after pre-sale will bring you Notes and can be counted as Foundation part
- Make pre-sale for 30 days, each day as auction 0.5% for BTC, 0.5% for PTS
- 30% AGS, 30% PTS, 10% foundation, 30% presale. This reduces AGS/PTS only by 5% but gives the presale folks a better (subjective) feeling of equality. I could even live well with 25/25/10/50 if that helps to receive disproportionally more funds and new community members! New community members will likely also be attracted to BTSX....
I wouldn't allocate 30% to presale. It's too much imo. Investors who participate in presale basically seek to short-term profit; they are dumpers. In addition, if we allocate too many Notes to presale, the average price will be lowered, especially given the situation that crypto-market is experiencing recession, and then this will generate negative effects on AGS/PTS holders.
And it is not 'only 5%' because initial suggestion was 45%. 15 out of 45 is a quite big difference.
As I can see the AGS style will be best choise, as example:
- Allocate 35% to PTS, 35% to AGS, 30% to a pre-sale
- As AGS: accept only BTC and PTS
- PTS which you will have after pre-sale will bring you Notes and can be counted as Foundation part
- Make pre-sale for 30 days, each day as auction 0.5% for BTC, 0.5% for PTS
well i am against the IPO. But I understand the need to raise capital for development. So if you do make an IPO I would like this to be in bitusd. This would be a very good chance to show to everyone how each DAC support the other.
Why raise any bitcoins or PTS? You want capital? Get it via Bitusd and convert that to usd when needed...
If we go for a pre-sale. It will be a Bitcoin only AGS style one. Only shorter, 30 to 60 days yes.I think only 10% should go to pre-sale. 20% to pre-sale is too high.
well i am against the IPO. But I understand the need to raise capital for development. So if you do make an IPO I would like this to be in bitusd. This would be a very good chance to show to everyone how each DAC support the other.
Why raise any bitcoins or PTS? You want capital? Get it via Bitusd and convert that to usd when needed...
Sounds great. I agree that a pre-sale would generate some buzz and give people another chance to get in. This seems like a fair revised allocation.
My only added suggestion is to not have the pre-sale drag on and on. AGS lasted for too long. I'd go with 30-60 days maximum unless you need more time to develop the product.
well i am against the IPO. But I understand the need to raise capital for development. So if you do make an IPO I would like this to be in bitusd. This would be a very good chance to show to everyone how each DAC support the other.
Why raise any bitcoins or PTS? You want capital? Get it via Bitusd and convert that to usd when needed...
The IPO is pointless. If they just pre-allocate 30% to themselves it's the exact same effect. Once the shares hit the exchange they can sell off some of it.
So the question is why did they originally offer 45/45/10 and now they want to do 35/35/30?
They are asking for more money without justifying why it's necessary other than because they can.
I'd disagree because sufficient starting capital and new supporters (also for the whole bitshares ecosystem!) are so crucial. Thinking in terms of exponential growth and giving away first helps a lot in my experience! A balance has to be found...QuoteI wouldn't allocate 30% to presale. It's too much imo. Investors who participate in presale basically seek to short-term profit; they are dumpers. In addition, if we allocate too many Notes to presale, the average price will be lowered, especially given the situation that crypto-market is experiencing recession, and then this will generate negative effects on AGS/PTS holders.
And it is not 'only 5%' because initial suggestion was 45%. 15 out of 45 is a quite big difference.
I fully agree with that quote
$$$$Sounds great. I agree that a pre-sale would generate some buzz and give people another chance to get in. This seems like a fair revised allocation.
My only added suggestion is to not have the pre-sale drag on and on. AGS lasted for too long. I'd go with 30-60 days maximum unless you need more time to develop the product.
If people wanted to get in then what was AGS/PTS for? What about those people?
So now AGS/PTS has to compete with some presale operation? I can see the point that presales can generate hype but AGS/PTS already generated hype. Tell them to buy AGS/PTS.
Dilution is barely acceptable but I don't see any benefit to this idea. What exactly does it gain?
If we go for a pre-sale. It will be a Bitcoin only AGS style one. Only shorter, 30 to 60 days yes.Personally I agree, this would be my preferred way to handle a pre-sale. No fixed price, long enough to generate sales and buzz but not too long where it drags on forever.
Why should the cost of Notes obtained by PTS cost less than those bought directly through a pre-sale?If we go for a pre-sale. It will be a Bitcoin only AGS style one. Only shorter, 30 to 60 days yes.I think only 10% should go to pre-sale. 20% to pre-sale is too high.
Also at what price should the presale be? It has to be higher than what PTS and AGS paid for it otherwise it's at the expense of PTS and AGS. PTS and AGS was like the initial pre-sale. People donated and got shares.
So I guess the PTS/AGS snapshot will be INDEPENDENT of the presale? you launch the presale AFTER the snapshot?
My initial thoughts are:Price is irrelevant. VCs and angel investors are looking for start ups with potential to put in their capital.
1. I don't feel that we are so much in a crypto booming. Especially with bitcoin price dropping from the beginning of the year
2. What happens if BTC drops in price much faster than notes? You will spend very fast all the bitcoins for future development and not raise so much money. Consider also the possibility that not many people learn or invest on the IPO so with few bitcoins, few people earn more shares and dilute PTS-AGS shareholders. This will create a bad image for the PTS and raise questions for their purpose in acquiring in advance shares for future DACs. I have already seen a lot of new members asking why to invest in PTS now and not wait when the DAC is launched.Nothing is stopping the Foundation for hedging it's funds. If it want's to sell off EVERYTHING it has for fiat, it can. The pre-sale will be done in Bitcoin, but nothing is stopping it from selling some off for Euros, canadian dollars, DOGE lol
3. You do give the opportunity to new people to participate through PTS. I don't understand why you think that an IPO will be different and will bring more members in our community. The same persons that are likely to invest through IPO might as well invest by buying PTS and keep them for the next DACs.People spending their money on PTS raises exactly ZERO dollars for the Music project. So why bring it up? Your goal is to own a DAC that has wealth behind it no?
4. Definitely agree imposing a cap to the dilution from the delegates in order to avoid selling pressure.Yes and let's see what Bytemaster comes up with in his other thread.
5. Isn't the 10% of the Foundation sufficient for the development of the DAC especially if it is to be worth billions?Please re-read the original post.
Now the next step is to mentally accept the 'Music Foundation' is not getting any free share allocations. (i.e. no 10% reserved share). Getting the hard cash should be good enough. ( if you want some Notes, feel free to buy some in the IPO)You are saying that when a company goes public it should not be allowed to retain any stock?
The 3rd step is to accept bitUSD (in addition to BTC) - the positives are numerous let's name a few:If it can be implemented simply. But I remember Toast telling me we would not be ready for this yet. Will have to bring it up again.
- Hedge against possible (likely in my mind) BTC price movement;
- Support for the whole Bitshares eco-system (which your Music DAC is a part of now, and we all hope grown part of it);
While this would be great, we shouldn't forget that we are still using test wallets, not a final product.Ah yes! That was the main reason why (:
I think this would create a great barrier for new investors.
Do you have expenses that require both 10% to the foundation and then another 20%? Basically you're saying the foundation should get 30% up front?Do we have expenses!? haha hmm yes.
Also the whole presale thing seems like a completely unnecessary ritual. If you just say 30% goes to the foundation then you can just sell that. I think the presale idea is bad.I think you also missed something in the original post. Of course we can dump Notes at launch. The point of this thread is that it's not a good idea to crash the price of a baby blockchain when instead you can just spend bitcoin to fund devs and marketing and lawyers.
New investors can just buy PTS if they want to get shares prior to launching.Once again, how does buying PTS off of an exchange pay for a DAC exactly?
I don't understand why you think that an IPO raising bicoins will attract new people.I speak from personal experience. I know many people that bought into Ethereum and maidsafe that where previously NOT fans. The IPO got them interested "hmmm am I missing out if I don't read up on this project?"
New people will get attracted by buying PTS in advance as long as this is well communicated to them.Which helps no one except the PTS seller, whoever that may be.
The IPO is pointless. If they just pre-allocate 30% to themselves it's the exact same effect. Once the shares hit the exchange they can sell off some of it.
So the question is why did they originally offer 45/45/10 and now they want to do 35/35/30?
If people wanted to get in then what was AGS/PTS for? What about those people?
So now AGS/PTS has to compete with some presale operation? I can see the point that presales can generate hype but AGS/PTS already generated hype. Tell them to buy AGS/PTS.
Dilution is barely acceptable but I don't see any benefit to this idea. What exactly does it gain?
from: dat peg doe on Today at 09:39:57 PMYou are saying that when a company goes public it should not be allowed to retain any stock?
Now the next step is to mentally accept the 'Music Foundation' is not getting any free share allocations. (i.e. no 10% reserved share). Getting the hard cash should be good enough. ( if you want some Notes, feel free to buy some in the IPO)
...
No it's not pointless. The IPO sets an initial market cap. In the 20% case a 1:5 ratio of course.
Also after the IPO an sell off wouldn't be needed.
The devs wouldn't have to wait for buy support to be build, only to wreck it by dumping for development costs.
Ah! I see where the confusion may lie.
You seem to think there is a link between third party developers and PTS/AGS.
PTS and AGS were a way to donate to invictus innovations, now called BitShares. Whatever money was sent to them was to make a bitshares toolkit.
BitShares is not launching ANY products. They are merely developers writing software for corporations to launch.
Corporations can use their software under 1 condition and 1 condition only. You allocate 10% of whatever you launch to PTS holders and 10% to AGS. No other strings attached.
Somehow you seem to think Cédric Cobban and Eddie Corral received funds from AGS or PTS.
if you want buzz and more people in the boad, maybe accept some coins with good trading volume
1. BTC
2. LTC
3. DOGE
so far everyone else ignors the alt communities, maybe this would be the right move. If you get the doge community you will get a lot of good marketers on our side.
less likely to complain about not getting their 45%.
Agreed as well. As a PTS and AGS holder I'm prefectly happy with 35%/35% but would even accept appreciably less if there was good justification to go along with it.Ah! I see where the confusion may lie.
You seem to think there is a link between third party developers and PTS/AGS.
PTS and AGS were a way to donate to invictus innovations, now called BitShares. Whatever money was sent to them was to make a bitshares toolkit.
BitShares is not launching ANY products. They are merely developers writing software for corporations to launch.
Corporations can use their software under 1 condition and 1 condition only. You allocate 10% of whatever you launch to PTS holders and 10% to AGS. No other strings attached.
Somehow you seem to think Cédric Cobban and Eddie Corral received funds from AGS or PTS.
Well said. Personally, I was even fine with the 10% to AGS, 10% to PTS model. What I wasn't fine with was a small group of founders owning such a large share of the equity in the beginning of the DAC. I think 10% to the BitShares Music Foundation, x% to AGS, x% to PTS, and the rest (90 - 2*x)% for a pre-sale/IPO is great. Obviously, x >= 10, but I am not sure what the best number should be. It depends on what are people's initial valuation of the DAC, and what the expected expenses will be for development/marketing/legal for the DAC and supporting infrastructure (PeerTracks) during the early initial growth phase. For later phases, and for unexpected expenses that can turbocharge growth, a dilution mechanism, if necessary, will work well.
Whatever specific allocation you guys decide on, you need to provide justification for it. And kicking the can down the road by saying inflation will solve all of the funding needs doesn't help. People need to have some estimation of the inflation they can expect when deciding how to initially values NOTES at launch. We need to see a more detailed business plan (the posted whitepaper is not enough) explaining what exactly provides value to NOTES and how you intend to do it. We need some estimation of the expected costs (development, business relations, marketing, legal, etc.) needed to create an ecosystem that is large enough that it can sustain itself off profit or even some light dilution if necessary for strategic expenses. I think if people had a much better idea of what the grand vision is, the economics of the system that make the DAC profitable, the unique risks involved, and how expensive it really is to achieve all of this, they would be less likely to complain about not getting their 45%. Uncertainty is only going to hurt the public image of this project and also likely result in a lower initial market cap / IPO funding.
Developers can allocate the remaining 80% however they think will allow them to outmaneuver their competition.
...
This will take a Big War Chest.
Let's not make the assumption that accumulating any amount of resources is too much.
We allocate 35% to PTS, 35% to AGS, 10% to the Foundation and 20% to a pre-sale.
This means we have a pre-sale, our DAC gets tons in funding in BTC, we get publicity and exposure, we get new members to our community, etc.
Delegates could dilute, but there would be a cap and it would be no where near as inflationary and potentially problem causing as before. ... Although dilution is an EXCELLENT tool for a second or third round of funding, especially since it can be decentralized and done by the delegates rather than the foundation.
For me to be a significant further investor, I suggest you do everything possible to include bitUSD as a funding method. I don't hold Bitcoin beyond what I need for spending (I can't spend btsx or bitUSD as of yet). I don't intend to adversely efffect my existing position by selling btsx or bitusd to buy bitcoin (thus creating downward pressure on my investments) in order to invest in Music DAC.Isn't it safe to assume that at least a large portion of whatever is used to purchase pre-sale shares will be liquidated into a form that is spendable (at this point USD or maybe BTC to some degree)? Based on this assumption what is the difference between selling your BTSX or bitUSD for BTC and directly purchasing shares with BTSX or bitUSD and having peertracks sell it for marketing and development use?
For me to be a significant further investor, I suggest you do everything possible to include bitUSD as a funding method. I don't hold Bitcoin beyond what I need for spending (I can't spend btsx or bitUSD as of yet). I don't intend to adversely efffect my existing position by selling btsx or bitusd to buy bitcoin (thus creating downward pressure on my investments) in order to invest in Music DAC.
Isn't it safe to assume that at least a large portion of whatever is used to purchase pre-sale shares will be liquidated into a form that is spendable (at this point USD or maybe BTC to some degree)? Based on this assumption what is the difference between selling your BTSX or bitUSD for BTC and directly purchasing shares with BTSX or bitUSD and having peertracks sell it for marketing and development use?
Hmm I agree that would be ideal, however realistically how many resources that peertracks will need to purchase are available in bitUSD? It feels to me like we are months or years away from gaining appreciable bitUSD adoption and I think a majority of the costs borne by peertracks will come shortly after IPO.For me to be a significant further investor, I suggest you do everything possible to include bitUSD as a funding method. I don't hold Bitcoin beyond what I need for spending (I can't spend btsx or bitUSD as of yet). I don't intend to adversely efffect my existing position by selling btsx or bitusd to buy bitcoin (thus creating downward pressure on my investments) in order to invest in Music DAC.
Isn't it safe to assume that at least a large portion of whatever is used to purchase pre-sale shares will be liquidated into a form that is spendable (at this point USD or maybe BTC to some degree)? Based on this assumption what is the difference between selling your BTSX or bitUSD for BTC and directly purchasing shares with BTSX or bitUSD and having peertracks sell it for marketing and development use?
Hopefully the developers would endeavor to pay as many expenses as possible using BitUSD instead of converting to BTC or fiat, and this should become increasingly easy, quite possibly before a significant amount of the development funds have been used.
One hand washes the other.
Developers can allocate the remaining 80% however they think will allow them to outmaneuver their competition.
...
This will take a Big War Chest.
Let's not make the assumption that accumulating any amount of resources is too much.
Hmm, so this is an interesting question for you. What do you think the balance is between pleasing AGS/PTS holders and raising funds by IPO (basically what is the ideal value of x in my previous post)? On one hand, pleasing AGS/PTS holders gives the DAC a strong initial community support which can pay off in terms of marketing. On the other hand, more capital can be used to fund development, legal costs, and also marketing. Furthermore, an IPO buys you a great community of initial supporters as well, and in fact, I would argue it is better support (stronger hands) than AGS/PTS holders because they are self-selected during the IPO. Should x = 0? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely wondering what the ideal distribution is for an economically rational (not altruistic) DAC creator.
That brings up another point: getting the blessing and support of I3 is a huge deal (especially in these early stages) and allocating the minimum 10% to AGS/PTS is a way of getting that, but what exactly is I3's gain in providing support to third-parties who do this, considering the fact that I3 is not holding a huge stake of AGS and PTS? Actually is that even correct? I know you guys converted BTC to BTSX, but are you still holding huge amounts of PTS, and if so, what is the advantage of doing that rather than dumping it for more BTSX and then optionally buying stake in only the interesting DACs through the IPO just like everyone else.
less likely to complain about not getting their 45%.
It amazes me how quickly an entitlement mentality sets in.
The social consensus is for 10%.
Developers can allocate the remaining 80% however they think will allow them to outmaneuver their competition.http://bitshares.org/10-natural-laws-of-the-crypto-asset-universe/ (http://bitshares.org/10-natural-laws-of-the-crypto-asset-universe/)
The music industry has Big Elephants stomping around.
BitShares music must be prepared to take them on head to head.
This will take a Big War Chest.
Let's not make the assumption that accumulating any amount of resources is too much.In this doge-eat-doge world, the name of the game is to
leave no room for someone to clone your software and field a more competitive DAC.
Cob's job is to generate a massive fast-rolling stone that gathers all the moss in its path.
Period.
less likely to complain about not getting their 45%.
It amazes me how quickly an entitlement mentality sets in.
The social consensus is for 10%.
Developers can allocate the remaining 80% however they think will allow them to outmaneuver their competition.http://bitshares.org/10-natural-laws-of-the-crypto-asset-universe/ (http://bitshares.org/10-natural-laws-of-the-crypto-asset-universe/)
The music industry has Big Elephants stomping around.
BitShares music must be prepared to take them on head to head.
This will take a Big War Chest.
Let's not make the assumption that accumulating any amount of resources is too much.In this doge-eat-doge world, the name of the game is to
leave no room for someone to clone your software and field a more competitive DAC.
Cob's job is to generate a massive fast-rolling stone that gathers all the moss in its path.
Period.
I fully agree with you, Stan. However, you did mention that the BitShares Music developer was giving PTS/AGS 50%, so that was the promise that all of us have been hanging onto these last few months as we continued to donate to AGS and acquire more PTS. Then we heard it would be the minimal 20%, so you can see where that angst came from. Now 90% or 80% or 70% are very generous numbers; I am thrilled with any of these suggested allocations and I strongly agree with Cob that an initial fundraiser would generate some buzz + bring in some new money + make it harder for a forker to catch up. That is well worth the cost of a slightly smaller share.
Keep this in perspective, folks. A few days ago, we were looking at a minimal share allocation of 20% to PTS/AGS. Now we are looking at significantly more than the 50% we were once promised. Stop splitting hairs and thank these generous developers for increasing the allocation for the BitShares community...and for all their great work on this DAC.
I, for one, am more than satisfied with Cob's latest proposal.
4. By giving Eddie and Cob the freedom to explore all business models we are now at 35/35 up from 25/25 and way up from the 10/10 minimums.
4. By giving Eddie and Cob the freedom to explore all business models we are now at 35/35 up from 25/25 and way up from the 10/10 minimums.
4. By giving Eddie and Cob the freedom to explore all business models we are now at 35/35 up from 25/25 and way up from the 10/10 minimums.
And we should also make it clear that how many more Notes at most will be brought to this DAC by delegates. Otherwise investors may have doubts “is it possible for me to buy 5% of the shares which may become just 0.005% in two years due to the inflation?"
Bitcoin POW is bad but at least the investors clearly know that a certain amount of coins are mined each ten minutes. You make your choise.
We should tell the investors “no, we have restrictions, your 5% would at least worth 1%, no less."
I'd disagree because sufficient starting capital and new supporters (also for the whole bitshares ecosystem!) are so crucial. Thinking in terms of exponential growth and giving away first helps a lot in my experience! A balance has to be found...QuoteI wouldn't allocate 30% to presale. It's too much imo. Investors who participate in presale basically seek to short-term profit; they are dumpers. In addition, if we allocate too many Notes to presale, the average price will be lowered, especially given the situation that crypto-market is experiencing recession, and then this will generate negative effects on AGS/PTS holders.
And it is not 'only 5%' because initial suggestion was 45%. 15 out of 45 is a quite big difference.
I fully agree with that quote
4. By giving Eddie and Cob the freedom to explore all business models we are now at 35/35 up from 25/25 and way up from the 10/10 minimums.
And we should also make it clear that how many more Notes at most will be brought to this DAC by delegates. Otherwise investors may have doubts “is it possible for me to buy 5% of the shares which may become just 0.005% in two years due to the inflation?"
Bitcoin POW is bad but at least the investors clearly know that a certain amount of coins are mined each ten minutes. You make your choise.
We should tell the investors “no, we have restrictions, your 5% would at least worth 1%, no less."
I think that's a fair request to make of them. And of the BitShares X folks as well.
Because PTS owners will probably dump and go into another DAC. It's a gamble not worth taking but honestly why would you hold shares in a DAC which is going to dilute from the top and bottom?If we go for a pre-sale. It will be a Bitcoin only AGS style one. Only shorter, 30 to 60 days yes.I think only 10% should go to pre-sale. 20% to pre-sale is too high.
Also at what price should the presale be? It has to be higher than what PTS and AGS paid for it otherwise it's at the expense of PTS and AGS. PTS and AGS was like the initial pre-sale. People donated and got shares.
I was a very early investor in everything bitshares (Keyhotee, PTS AGS, tips for articles, etc.).
Since I will be getting a stake in the Music DAC because of AGS holdings, I will be invested in this project.
For me to be a significant further investor, I suggest you do everything possible to include bitUSD as a funding method. I don't hold Bitcoin beyond what I need for spending (I can't spend btsx or bitUSD as of yet). I don't intend to adversely efffect my existing position by selling btsx or bitusd to buy bitcoin (thus creating downward pressure on my investments) in order to invest in Music DAC.
BitUSD also has volatility lessening advantages over BTC for Music DAC developers without the added hassle and expense of hedging, and demonstrates to the crypto world faith in DPOS over POW
As you understand already, I think, this would be win/win/win
I'd disagree because sufficient starting capital and new supporters (also for the whole bitshares ecosystem!) are so crucial. Thinking in terms of exponential growth and giving away first helps a lot in my experience! A balance has to be found...QuoteI wouldn't allocate 30% to presale. It's too much imo. Investors who participate in presale basically seek to short-term profit; they are dumpers. In addition, if we allocate too many Notes to presale, the average price will be lowered, especially given the situation that crypto-market is experiencing recession, and then this will generate negative effects on AGS/PTS holders.
And it is not 'only 5%' because initial suggestion was 45%. 15 out of 45 is a quite big difference.
I fully agree with that quote
Where are your numbers to back this? How do we know they aren't just trying to line their pockets?
Show an adoption graph which proves that adoption is going at a certain rate and then make a roadmap of features that are being paid for.
Asking for money without any math, charts, strategy or business plan is not fair to investors. What are we going to learn in the IPO that we don't already know to make the IPO worth doing?4. By giving Eddie and Cob the freedom to explore all business models we are now at 35/35 up from 25/25 and way up from the 10/10 minimums.
And we should also make it clear that how many more Notes at most will be brought to this DAC by delegates. Otherwise investors may have doubts “is it possible for me to buy 5% of the shares which may become just 0.005% in two years due to the inflation?"
Bitcoin POW is bad but at least the investors clearly know that a certain amount of coins are mined each ten minutes. You make your choise.
We should tell the investors “no, we have restrictions, your 5% would at least worth 1%, no less."
I think that's a fair request to make of them. And of the BitShares X folks as well.
They need to think very carefully about their incentives. The DAC needs participants and the wrong incentives will make us move our attention elsewhere. If PTS/AGS owners feel like they'll lose in the long term then they aren't going to have a reason to hold or stay in right now.
Why wouldn't it be rational to immediately sell before the presale buyers who got even cheaper notes can sell theirs and then buy back in a year or two later after other DACs with better incentives and no inflation have made profit?
Inflation is not a very competitive incentive unless you have an audience or group of participants who truly believe in the success of your DAC. Not many people at this time believe in Bitshares Music being a success enough to deal with inflation early on.
Also Bitcoiners aren't going to hold either when the price of Bitcoin is crashing due to inflation. Bitcoiners will pump and dump and since AGS/PTS holders know this is coming why wouldn't the AGS/PTS holders immediately sell too? AGS/PTS holders aren't going to want to be bag holders.
Tell me why the scenario would play out different?
Because PTS owners will probably dump and go into another DAC. It's a gamble not worth taking but honestly why would you hold shares in a DAC which is going to dilute from the top and bottom?Why should the cost of Notes obtained by PTS cost less than those bought directly through a pre-sale?If we go for a pre-sale. It will be a Bitcoin only AGS style one. Only shorter, 30 to 60 days yes.I think only 10% should go to pre-sale. 20% to pre-sale is too high.
Also at what price should the presale be? It has to be higher than what PTS and AGS paid for it otherwise it's at the expense of PTS and AGS. PTS and AGS was like the initial pre-sale. People donated and got shares.
In fact I think it makes sense to have some Notes for sale cheaper at the pre-sale, that way investors have a choice. If they believe in I3 and the DAC toolkit being developed they can pay a bit more and get shares in all future DACs following the social consensus or if they are really only interested in the Music DAC specifically they can get shares for just that at a small discount rate.
I do agree that it will be a bit disappointing if direct sale Notes end up being orders of magnitude cheaper than what I paid for the PTS/AGS that grant me Notes, but considering that 70% are going to PTS/AGS investors I doubt that will be the case.
As much as I like the Music DAC I'm not so confident in it that I would stay in it if they give a better deal to late comers than to the original pre-sale owners (PTS/AGS). If they want PTS/AGS holders to hold then they have to provide an incentive and the best way of preventing a dramatic sell off is to make sure the tokens sold in the pre-sale are more expensive than the deal people got purchasing PTS/AGS.
Otherwise what exactly is the point of continuing with the PTS/AGS ritual for this DAC or future DACs? Why not just scrap PTS/AGS and do presales from this point on?
I was a very early investor in everything bitshares (Keyhotee, PTS AGS, tips for articles, etc.).
Since I will be getting a stake in the Music DAC because of AGS holdings, I will be invested in this project.
For me to be a significant further investor, I suggest you do everything possible to include bitUSD as a funding method. I don't hold Bitcoin beyond what I need for spending (I can't spend btsx or bitUSD as of yet). I don't intend to adversely efffect my existing position by selling btsx or bitusd to buy bitcoin (thus creating downward pressure on my investments) in order to invest in Music DAC.
BitUSD also has volatility lessening advantages over BTC for Music DAC developers without the added hassle and expense of hedging, and demonstrates to the crypto world faith in DPOS over POW
As you understand already, I think, this would be win/win/win
+5% +5%
I agree with what you say. The IPO/Presale if there is one should be in BitUSD.
Why not make it in BitUSD exclusively? I don't see why it has to be in Bitcoin when the price of Bitcoin is falling anyway.
I'd disagree because sufficient starting capital and new supporters (also for the whole bitshares ecosystem!) are so crucial. Thinking in terms of exponential growth and giving away first helps a lot in my experience! A balance has to be found...QuoteI wouldn't allocate 30% to presale. It's too much imo. Investors who participate in presale basically seek to short-term profit; they are dumpers. In addition, if we allocate too many Notes to presale, the average price will be lowered, especially given the situation that crypto-market is experiencing recession, and then this will generate negative effects on AGS/PTS holders.
And it is not 'only 5%' because initial suggestion was 45%. 15 out of 45 is a quite big difference.
I fully agree with that quote
Where are your numbers to back this? How do we know they aren't just trying to line their pockets?
Show an adoption graph which proves that adoption is going at a certain rate and then make a roadmap of features that are being paid for.
Asking for money without any math, charts, strategy or business plan is not fair to investors. What are we going to learn in the IPO that we don't already know to make the IPO worth doing?4. By giving Eddie and Cob the freedom to explore all business models we are now at 35/35 up from 25/25 and way up from the 10/10 minimums.
And we should also make it clear that how many more Notes at most will be brought to this DAC by delegates. Otherwise investors may have doubts “is it possible for me to buy 5% of the shares which may become just 0.005% in two years due to the inflation?"
Bitcoin POW is bad but at least the investors clearly know that a certain amount of coins are mined each ten minutes. You make your choise.
We should tell the investors “no, we have restrictions, your 5% would at least worth 1%, no less."
I think that's a fair request to make of them. And of the BitShares X folks as well.
They need to think very carefully about their incentives. The DAC needs participants and the wrong incentives will make us move our attention elsewhere. If PTS/AGS owners feel like they'll lose in the long term then they aren't going to have a reason to hold or stay in right now.
Why wouldn't it be rational to immediately sell before the presale buyers who got even cheaper notes can sell theirs and then buy back in a year or two later after other DACs with better incentives and no inflation have made profit?
Inflation is not a very competitive incentive unless you have an audience or group of participants who truly believe in the success of your DAC. Not many people at this time believe in Bitshares Music being a success enough to deal with inflation early on.
Also Bitcoiners aren't going to hold either when the price of Bitcoin is crashing due to inflation. Bitcoiners will pump and dump and since AGS/PTS holders know this is coming why wouldn't the AGS/PTS holders immediately sell too? AGS/PTS holders aren't going to want to be bag holders.
Tell me why the scenario would play out different?
None of this takes place in a vacuum. The people making the decisions about whether to add value to the DAC in exchange for new notes are the existing noteholders who are not likely to approve anything that is not expected to increase their net worth.
The 10% allocated to the BitShares Music Foundation is also your assurance that the Foundation will be properly motivated to act in a way to protect the net worth of all noteholders.
To summarize:
There is downward pressure on price for issuing new notes.
There is upward pressure on price from the benefit of what those notes are buying.
You don't approve the deal unless the latter pressure is greater than the former.
Net result - all such deals should increase the value of your shares over time.
That's why flesh and blood and brick and mortar companies do this routinely.
It is the time-proven way to grow a company for the benefit of all its stakeholders. :)
I dont see anything wrong with the pre-sale. It's a good way to create a buzz a get new more people involve. If you are worried about Notes being cheaper during pre-sale, then sell your PTS right before the snapshot(when they should be worth the most) and buy more more in the pre-sale.
After reading all your posts and cob's reply my new thoughts are as follows:
1. A total balance between IPO-Foundation of no more than 20% is very acceptable
1. An IPO including bitusd and bitcoins would be good. Although there is no much liquidity in bitusd it will help the ecosystem. People will actually have to buy bitusd and give them to the IPO so even the devs exchange all the bitusd for usd I don't think that this will have any negative result in dumping bitusd on the market. It will just create more liquidity for bitusd.
2. I am more than happy with anything more than 35/35 for AGS/PTS.
3. In the end of the day it is up to the devs how to allocate the shares. As Stan said, if they did not choose wisely another competitor will overtake them.
4. Well done cob. You have already created a lot of interest in your DAC within the community within a couple of days.
you should allow not only BTC but also PTS donations/investment (much like AGS) .. mabye even allow bitAssets!! The tech is here and works the same way as BTC!
besides that, I see it as a fair compromise between the proposal yesterday and the very first 10%ish proposal .. IF you have a marketing team already working on it by all means!
+5you should allow not only BTC but also PTS donations/investment (much like AGS) .. mabye even allow bitAssets!! The tech is here and works the same way as BTC!
besides that, I see it as a fair compromise between the proposal yesterday and the very first 10%ish proposal .. IF you have a marketing team already working on it by all means!
Definitely...instead of accepting BTC ...accept bitUSD and BTC, but give bitUSD donations a small (maybe 1%) increase in snapshot allocation to incentivize the purchase of bitUSD (which would increase the value of the entire btsx ecosystem).
I don't think accepting bitusd at stage is going to increase liquidity for bitusd in the short run. If anything, it's gonna suck bitusd out of btsx. The only people at this stage that are donating bitsud are people who already have bitusd. I dont see someone new going through the trouble btc->bitsx->bitusd->music dac when they can just go btc->music directly. After going to the music DAC directly, then they may be inclined to learn more about btsx and bitusd.
I don't think accepting bitusd at stage is going to increase liquidity for bitusd in the short run. If anything, it's gonna suck bitusd out of btsx. The only people at this stage that are donating bitsud are people who already have bitusd. I dont see someone new going through the trouble btc->bitsx->bitusd->music dac when they can just go btc->music directly. After going to the music DAC directly, then they may be inclined to learn more about btsx and bitusd.
I totally agree with this statement. btc -> music is much easier than btc -> btsx -> bitusd -> music, especially for non-bitshares people.
Are Notes going be tradeable in the BitsharesX client?Nop ... NOTES are the basis token in the BitShares MUSIC Blockchain ... like BTSX in BitShares-X
Well first of, cancel the 10 October snapshot. 8 days is no longer enough time to react, without having made clear how this thing will work and what people are buying into, this is BS and a very bad start.I hear rumors that a page will be launched before vegas conference .. and my hope is that the bitshares music/peertracks people are around to market their upcoming DAC/business
First work out your plan and funding model, make those plans very clear to everyone, so there is no doubt what people will be buying, and make sure you advertize everywhere so everyone can get in on it and only then start the snapshot countdown. Only then can people take their position in this. Seriously cancel the snapshot date and do a better announcement on more channels than just this obscure forum post.
and make sure you advertize everywhere so everyone can get in on it and only then start the snapshot countdown. Only then can people take their position in this. Seriously cancel the snapshot date and do a better announcement on more channels than just this obscure forum post.+5% +5% This seems reasonable to me in order to not get hate for not making it public and just distributing it "among existing PTS/AGS holders". PTS holders would not even be at a disadvantage, they dont have to sell their PTS. Advertising before the Snapshot would also bring more supporters in.
Well first of, cancel the 10 October snapshot. 8 days is no longer enough time to react, without having made clear how this thing will work and what people are buying into, this is BS and a very bad start.
First work out your plan and funding model, make those plans very clear to everyone, so there is no doubt what people will be buying, and make sure you advertize everywhere so everyone can get in on it and only then start the snapshot countdown. Only then can people take their position in this. Seriously cancel the snapshot date and do a better announcement on more channels than just this obscure forum post.
+5% +5% This seems reasonable to me in order to not get hate for not making it public and just distributing it "among existing PTS/AGS holders". PTS holders would not even be at a disadvantage, they dont have to sell their PTS. Advertising before the Snapshot would also bring more supporters in.
Any legal issues with this? I think not...
Well first of, cancel the 10 October snapshot. 8 days is no longer enough time to react, without having made clear how this thing will work and what people are buying into, this is BS and a very bad start.sorry but I must agree...
First work out your plan and funding model, make those plans very clear to everyone, so there is no doubt what people will be buying, and make sure you advertize everywhere so everyone can get in on it and only then start the snapshot countdown. Only then can people take their position in this. Seriously cancel the snapshot date and do a better announcement on more channels than just this obscure forum post.
Well first of, cancel the 10 October snapshot. 8 days is no longer enough time to react, without having made clear how this thing will work and what people are buying into, this is BS and a very bad start.
First work out your plan and funding model, make those plans very clear to everyone, so there is no doubt what people will be buying, and make sure you advertize everywhere so everyone can get in on it and only then start the snapshot countdown. Only then can people take their position in this. Seriously cancel the snapshot date and do a better announcement on more channels than just this obscure forum post.
Cob will be there tomorrow for the Dev Hangout so I am sure it would be a good place to answer questions in depth. Some of these points are very well made...and we are still learning best practices with each DAC kind of "testing the waters". The community has a very important role to play in telling DAC developers/delegates what is expected of them so I say we should definitely consider giving it time to talk about.shit .. and I will again miss it .. damnit ..
Cob will be there tomorrow for the Dev Hangout so I am sure it would be a good place to answer questions in depth. Some of these points are very well made...and we are still learning best practices with each DAC kind of "testing the waters". The community has a very important role to play in telling DAC developers/delegates what is expected of them so I say we should definitely consider giving it time to talk about.shit .. and I will again miss it .. damnit ..
I would NOT cancel this. People have purchased PTS on the basis of this announcement. All any of us need to know is that there will be a fundraiser also, for a limited percentage of the total shares, so PTS is not the only way for new people to get in. It's still very, very important to keep this date and maintain that credibility.
So far nobody seems to know the answer to this next question.
Will this be a ecosystem where everybody can start up shop and issue their Brand/Songs whatever on the blockchain (without peertracks) and where peertracks just so happens to be first to market in this new specialized artist-blockchain ecosystem? Or is this a new ITunes style centralized website concept, but just with a more public database in the form of a blockchain?
I agree with Joeyd on the distribution, I'd much rather have 10% for AGS/PTS with a big presale/IPO giving major financial backing to the developers. Look at Ethereum, they've got something like 15 million dollars in funding so far, imagine what cob et al could do with that kind of backing.
QuoteI agree with Joeyd on the distribution, I'd much rather have 10% for AGS/PTS with a big presale/IPO giving major financial backing to the developers. Look at Ethereum, they've got something like 15 million dollars in funding so far, imagine what cob et al could do with that kind of backing.
What will they do exactly? That is the question...
BTSX already had a lot of funds from AGS. If they use the funds to boost hugely BTSX, Music and all other DPOS DACs will experience automatically a huge boost as well. If BTSX fails hugely no matter how much funding Music and the other DACs have for further development I don't think anyone will invest or care about them.
BTSX is the 1 product that needs to be boosted and all others will follow the same pattern. No need for huge IPOs imho. Just some small percentage to cover basic costs, marketing and development. 10%-20% IPO is fine I think.. Anything more than this will make PTS-AGS shareholders diluted and selling pressure from them will increase and drive the respective DACs shares down..
Even a 30,30,10,30 split might be a hard sell, because to outsiders it will look like 60% going to privileged investors and the people actually paying for it getting a measly 30%. How would you feel about crowdfunding a project like that, where you pay all development and startup costs for 30% of the stake. Just see the bitching about not getting 70% for providing no funds at all and talking about dilution and all that, if anything that only proves the validity of my point of view.
@ JoeyD, I completely agree with you and others regarding the need for money to pay for all the future development and costs so even if I was completely against an IPO in the beginning I have re instated my position in previous posts.
All I am saying though is that most people have linked BTSX to all the other DACs (DNS, Music, Lotto etc...). If BTSX fails completely the confidence will significantly drop and all the other DACs will be doomed as well, no matter how much capital they raise through IPO. PTS-AGS shareholders are the most believers in the success of the DACs so awarding them more shares, which essentially don't give up easily creates appreciation of the company.
If the IPO is not a success and doesn't get much funding as intended (no new money are injected) there will be additional selling pressure and the DAC will not succeed. IMHO it is more likely to succeed from people who own shares and bought at $3.5 - $4.5 (PTS-AGS) and give more initial value to the DAC from the beginning rather than risk a big portion of the shares to a unsuccessful IPO.
Having said all that a hydrid model is more likely to succeed.
PTS/AGS/Foundation/ IPO1 30%/30%/10%/10% and the remaining shares in reserve for future distribution or for IPO2 maybe?