So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus. Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.
Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days. Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing. Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us. Either way it is charity. Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.
Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.
Bottom line: mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit. You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month. You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day. In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.
You're correct on the 10% vs. 20%, that was a mis-rememberence on my part.
Regarding the rest of it, wow Daniel, you really think I'm a greedy asshole, I had no idea.
In case anybody is wondering, I went by
Lighthouse on the forums and was the first member providing escrow and large volume transaction at a time when Protoshares was not listed on any exchanges and had many scammers stealing bitcoin or PTS from new users.
Taking this role, even under a completely reputation-less name led me to becoming a broker for a single large miner who contacted me on the forums (I openly bought from all miners and subsequently met a lot of them). All of my trades happened before November 18th, so less than two weeks after launch and well before the move away from POW was discussed.
I performed this service until it stopped being required, and then I stopped performing it because I was only doing it to provide the trust to enable the market. Actually you Daniel were my last volume customer, and were my most frequent customer so really it seems like you would only have paid me if I was providing you a service.
Why would you have bought from me if I was exploitative, did I have a monopoly? Was I even mining myself? No. Nobody even knew I have a show, which is why I didn't use my real name. Later I switched to my real name because I wanted my concerns to be on the record because it was obvious Invictus was missing deadlines and not responding to gentle prodding.
So thanks for giving just enough information that I need to out myself in order to provide proper context to defend my reputation.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
Having read my perspective, I hope that you correct this assessment. I very much liked the idea of the Bitshares project as it was described which involved a minority of shares being designated for the PTS holders and most of them available to people through non-monetary means. The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember? I don't really get how mis-calibrating the first attempt means you throw out the entire notion and come up with something new.
Hell, I'm not even against coming up with something new - I just don't understand why it took precedence over developing the core Bitshares technology which is based around assets, betting etc. Nothing to do with transactional lower level stuff.
I think I've made my case really clearly Daniel, you quoted one small section of my very long and detailed reply and then dismissed my entire perspective by dropping incomplete disclosure of previously non-public information . Do you have any responses to the actual meat of it, or are we just throwing mud at this point?
Also, are all off-the-record conversations now on-the-record?