-
I know our late forum member, the irrepressible and prolific Decentralized Application (DA), has gone on to a far, far better place and it does no good to leave a wistful message on his virtual grave, but maybe somehow out there in that Great Somewhere he will at last find peace with the fact that we are about to give away
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/2c/2c0bc3c6cb57f321a926cece6962481518f5f682e6106a28c90808d977625b05.jpg)
That’s right. BitShares PTS will soon be upgraded to DPOS security instead of POW mining, meaning that all the remaining PTS that had been set aside to employ miners are no longer needed. PTS will earn a tangible profit by cutting expenses! R&D pays!
To celebrate this R&D triumph and call it to the attention of the whole world,
we are giving away 100% of the profit!
Whatever PTS remain unmined at the upgrade snapshot will never again have to be paid for miners to dig holes and fill them in. So we will share it all in a fiendishly clever combination of competitions, prizes, incentives, bounties, grants, co-promotions and airdrops. (Over $1,000,000 worth at today’s established market prices.) The very thing our forum has been brainstorming and demanding since this all began.
And you didn't think we were listening!
This sharing of the payoff of our R&D efforts will be accomplished in a highly coordinated, synergistic, integrated, mind-boggling multi-month campaign to stimulate demand for our entire product family line: PTS, AGS, XT, ME, X, LOTTO, DNS and MUSIC while adding still more awesome DACs to the pipeline.
Our marketing and engineering teams are physically coming together from all corners of the planet to make this A Summer to Remember*. Stay tuned for more details!
(http://mariamuir.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/rip.gif)
Rest in Peace, DA
*or Winter
-
Very cool!
-
Is there a less forum-centric announcement of this news anywhere? Most of the people I could send this information to would be bewildered by the inside references and jokes. (Although I enjoy them personally).
-
Is there a less forum-centric announcement of this news anywhere? Most of the people I could send this information to would be bewildered by the inside references and jokes. (Although I enjoy them personally).
There will be. We wanted you guys to be the first to know...
-
thanks for always having the people from Down Under in mind haha
*or Winter
-
DPOS is coming!
(http://www.dropbox.com/s/8ta3ur0k0owsd1o/winter-is-coming-wallpaper-1.jpg)
-
+5%
That's great. PTS should be used to try this new tech first.
-
+5%
-
WHEN will PTS be transformed to DPOS?
-
I can see future posts and reviews.... "how become Bitshares a religion? " "bitsharestalk community multimillionaires members made another marvellous/giant charity donation! "... etc.... .... ....
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
-
ETA of the new PTS DPOS version？don't tell me soon,i hate this world :p..if you can not give any ETA,just ignore me :(
ok i see , * or winter... I surrender..
-
ETA?
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
-
I can see future posts and reviews.... "how become Bitshares a religion? " "bitsharestalk community multimillionaires members made another marvellous/giant charity donation! "... etc.... .... ....
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
Making anything a religion makes you blind...
-
Stan would it be a good idea to give a part of the pts (let's say 20%) to AGS holders after the end of fundraising/donation AGS period, so the demand for AGS would increase more the last 60 days and some of the frustrated
early investors would calm down and find their lost confidence again... ?
PS I know some early investors (AGS holders) they would love to buy bitshare-pts (because of the DPOS thing) now but they are out of funds... It would be nice/great to give to all of your AGS investors/donators a symbolic quantity of DPOS bitshares-PTS 2.0 to "play" around :)
-
It's actually just another way to capture the remaining unmined PTS ($1m) into your own pocket, just like what you did by AGS. So long as Invictus has the right to decide whoever gets the remaining unmined PTS, it is in violation of the original social contract. You actually don't need an extra $1m to *help build the crypto-equity industry*, the fund you kept hostage via AGS is already far more than enough.
As an angry investor who invested more than $100k, though I don't post in this forum a lot, I really care the whole development of this project. And I'm really disappointed to see you guys bouncing checks all the time.
-
It's actually just another way to capture the remaining unmined PTS ($1m) into your own pocket, just like what you did by AGS. So long as Invictus has the right to decide whoever gets the remaining unmined PTS, it is in violation of the original social contract. You actually don't need an extra $1m to *help build the crypto-equity industry*, the fund you kept hostage via AGS is already far more than enough.
As an angry investor who invested more than $100k, though I don't post in this forum a lot, I really care the whole development of this project. And I'm really disappointed to see you guys bouncing checks all the time.
maybe ,I should add +5%
-
So long as Invictus has the right to decide whoever gets the remaining unmined PTS, it is in violation of the original social contract.
valid point...
but the same time we must face the reality that a long time ago it is not profitable to mine PTS !!!
I mean the miners will get pts worth of about 1 million and the same time will loose more then a million because of electric bills and because they don't mined other realy profitable worth-mining coins...The only reason to mine PTS (if I don't lack of the public informations provided) is SECURITY, that is solved after the DPOS "implementation"... or am I missing something. Of course they must somehow convince us or better to say proof us the remaining PTS will fairly distributed to the "public"...
PS What about the Idea to give the remaining PTS to AGS investors and the percentage that will take I3 because they are heavily invested on AGS would used for that reason Stan mentioned.After all it would be near $1.000.000 after PTS price raise because of the buzz and I hope the release of BitsharesX...
-
Or anounce when you will BURN THEM (the remaining PTS) ...
The PTS with DPOS technology and the BURNING METHOD would surely boost the value of PTS...and make the holders twice happy!
-
dpos come on
-
I think this is an idea that could benefit everyone a lot and get us a lot of attention and good will, as long as it's done well. This is way better than distributing them by mining. Burning seems to be a wasted opportunity.
-
I think this is an idea that could benefit everyone a lot and get us a lot of attention and good will, as long as it's done well. This is way better than distributing them by mining.
+5%
-
I am thinking: Why not?
We already left the miners behind by establishing that it is wasteful, and assuming that our product is good, the only thing that really matters is promotion through giveaways, airdrops, charity, competitions, etc. that force people to pay attention to the product. So long as the product is good, and people pay attention, then the rest will take care of itself.
However, the snapshot must be announced way in advance or else people will miss it. Hmm.. I suspect the PTS price will go up very soon..
-
ETA of the new PTS DPOS version？don't tell me soon,i hate this world :p..if you can not give any ETA,just ignore me :(
ok i see , * or winter... I surrender..
"Or winter" was a a reference to the fact that half the planet is "soon" heading into winter.
(I didn't want to be a Northern Hemisphere chauvinist.) :)
PTS2 will be out as "soon" as XT has proven DPOS is ready for prime time.
-
thanks for always having the people from Down Under in mind haha
*or Winter
Ever since i looked up into the night sky from the streets of Canberra and saw that the constellation Orion was upside down I have never forgotten that half the planet spends their time hanging down from their feet. :)
-
We already left the miners behind by establishing that it is wasteful
+5%
The only miners right now are the PTS supporters and they loose money right now!
So it is great that they found a solution for the security (DPOS) and not only, and want to distribute the remaining PTS to the public...
Seems like a win-win situation as long as it's done well like Agent86 said ;)
-
ETA of the new PTS DPOS version？don't tell me soon,i hate this world :p..if you can not give any ETA,just ignore me :(
ok i see , * or winter... I surrender..
"Or winter" was a a reference to the fact that half the planet is "soon" heading into winter.
(I didn't want to be a Northern Hemisphere chauvinist.) :)
PTS2 will be out as "soon" as XT has proven DPOS is ready for prime time.
The last "soon" is so good
PTS2 come back
(http://imgsrc.baidu.com/forum/pic/item/eac4b74543a9822626f2088f8a82b9014a90eb63.jpg)
-
More details about our rationale
If we simply upgrade to DPOS, mining will end and the remaining ~300,000 PTS will never be created.
That is the same thing as destroying them and has the effect of giving all PTS holders at that time a 15% increase in BIPS (billionths of the money supply).
But our commitment is to always do the best thing we can think of for PTS and AGS holders.
A lousy 15% plus-up for PTS holders only is not the best we can do!
We are aiming for 2x, 3x, ... 10x... growth in value
- of the whole industry.
That is our definition of "fair"
:)
Judging from the overwhelming demand in this forum to "do something, anything!" to grow the industry exponentially, it would be simply irresponsible to pass up the opportunity to put the remaining shares into circulation via strategically targeted multi-dimensional promotions. The forum is full of great ideas for making sure that the BitShares industry really does capture the "Network Effect" to the point where some clever marketer can't fork the code and steal your wealth with a better marketing plan.
So to both protect existing investors and grow the value of their holdings we must use every resource as efficiently as possible to (with apologies to PETA and SPCA) kill as many birds with each PTS stone as possible.
Its all about lining up your shots and playing the game for where the chips will lie when the music stops and the smoke clears. (To mix a few metaphors.)
(http://www.cuesportgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/pelingas_jump_hook_line.jpg)
-
I seem to be the only one buying any PTS these days. I think every buy order over the last 2 days has been me. Maybe I'm the idiot. :-\
-
HaHa I sold some to you ;And I had bought back today.
-
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 by some unknown right is, unbelievable!
The arrogance of Stan does not stop there! He goes on to claim that because of their treatment of funds that are not theirs, this whole scheme will actually be very beneficial for the holders of PTS!
‘A lousy 15% plus-up for PTS holders only is not the best we can do!
We are aiming for 2x, 3x, ... 10x... growth in value’
How about a noble idea – if this promo will be so great, why doesn’t Invictus add 15 % of their own PTS and 15 % of the AGS fund, so the PTS holders benefit even more???
And the calm, approving response of the community to that outrageous suggestion is sheepish. We deserve our fate if we accept such despicable statements with such calm and notes of happiness.
-
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.
-
But the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS as theirs, as something that belongs to them...
I suppose everything is a matter of perspective, but currently those funds are earmarked for paying miners to burn electricity. So the PTS community / shareholders are the ones who should vote on what to do with the remaining PTS. I3 Ltd (AGS fund) controls something like 20% of PTS and so would benefit greatly (far more than any other single actor) by stopping the dilution of PTS and not giving anything away.
So it is a question of what the remaining PTS shareholders wish to do. In the interest of separating development from marketing I have left Stan, Brian, Gregory, and Arlen to work with the community to develop the best plans. I am not a dictator in these things.
Personally I suggested to them that PTS holders should get some benefit as well: ie give x% to PTS holders. However, I can also see that we intended there to be equal shares in PTS/AGS long-term.
In my opinion the arrogance is in assuming we are arrogant. In reality we are just people trying to do the best by everyone and improve the value of what everyone is holding.
We also would not be changing the deal for PTS holders: we said that there would be 2M + 1% inflation and reserved the right to fork the chain at any point to upgrade it. In this particular instance the PTS holders go from having 1% inflation to steady deflation from trx fees. Still a win for them.
-
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 by some unknown right is, unbelievable!
The arrogance of Stan does not stop there! He goes on to claim that because of their treatment of funds that are not theirs, this whole scheme will actually be very beneficial for the holders of PTS!
‘A lousy 15% plus-up for PTS holders only is not the best we can do!
We are aiming for 2x, 3x, ... 10x... growth in value’
How about a noble idea – if this promo will be so great, why doesn’t Invictus add 15 % of their own PTS and 15 % of the AGS fund, so the PTS holders benefit even more???
And the calm, approving response of the community to that outrageous suggestion is sheepish. We deserve our fate if we accept such despicable statements with such calm and notes of happiness.
Simeon II
Date Registered: May 16, 2014, 07:37:53 PMLocal Time:May 20, 2014, 07:44:24 PMLast Active: Today at 07:38:21 PM
Sock puppet?
-
But the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS as theirs, as something that belongs to them...
I suppose everything is a matter of perspective, but currently those funds are earmarked for paying miners to burn electricity. So the PTS community / shareholders are the ones who should vote on what to do with the remaining PTS. I3 Ltd (AGS fund) controls something like 20% of PTS and so would benefit greatly (far more than any other single actor) by stopping the dilution of PTS and not giving anything away.
So it is a question of what the remaining PTS shareholders wish to do. In the interest of separating development from marketing I have left Stan, Brian, Gregory, and Arlen to work with the community to develop the best plans. I am not a dictator in these things.
Personally I suggested to them that PTS holders should get some benefit as well: ie give x% to PTS holders. However, I can also see that we intended there to be equal shares in PTS/AGS long-term.
In my opinion the arrogance is in assuming we are arrogant. In reality we are just people trying to do the best by everyone and improve the value of what everyone is holding.
We also would not be changing the deal for PTS holders: we said that there would be 2M + 1% inflation and reserved the right to fork the chain at any point to upgrade it. In this particular instance the PTS holders go from having 1% inflation to steady deflation from trx fees. Still a win for them.
Humble and smart, not arrogant.
-
Sock puppet?
obvious!
but which of the 3 suspects?
-
PS What about the Idea to give the remaining PTS to AGS investors and the percentage that will take I3 because they are heavily invested on AGS would used for that reason Stan mentioned.After all it would be near $1.000.000 after PTS price raise because of the buzz and I hope the release of BitsharesX...
+5% +5%
-
Or anounce when you will BURN THEM (the remaining PTS) ...
The PTS with DPOS technology and the BURNING METHOD would surely boost the value of PTS...and make the holders twice happy!
+5%
-
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.
I have see my 2 prev. + 5's
-
PS What about the Idea to give the remaining PTS to AGS investors and the percentage that will take I3 because they are heavily invested on AGS would used for that reason Stan mentioned.After all it would be near $1.000.000 after PTS price raise because of the buzz and I hope the release of BitsharesX...
+5% +5%
Or anounce when you will BURN THEM (the remaining PTS) ...
The PTS with DPOS technology and the BURNING METHOD would surely boost the value of PTS...and make the holders twice happy!
+5%
The difference is that I don't made a new account to make that comments Simeon II*... I am spreading only different Ideas to give food to think about them and discuss them here.
I am not sure which of them (if any) are really good ones or better than others... The community responses will decide it and of course with more respect to the most experienced and "proved" trustfull member's...
* but if you really are a newbie it is a reason more not to comment like this... "But the arrogance it takes ..." because it looks like you are one of the competitors with not pure/kind incentives...
-
Why would it not be better to give some of the pts strategically to form partnerships with a solid footprint in alternative media and//or companies with philosophical characteristics that would help to further bootstrap the industry?
My take is that if the community really expects to get DAC creators to honor them with a % of their initial stake in theirmDACs over time...it might be a good idea to show the community is not afraid to recognize opportunity and uplift those with a common cause as opposed to defaulting to the easy path of taking the extra pts for themselves. Just a thought....but what if something like Khanacademy were to get some of these pts to issue to kids who reach certain milestones in their free online school...or codeacademy....
Overstock.com, mike maloney (giveaways with $ minimum gold and silver purchases)....there are many potential opportunities. Just 2 cents
-
As one of the miners providing 1.2 - 2.5% of the current PTS-hashing power at way higher electricity cost than what I'm getting in return, I would not mind being able to cut down on my bills. I'm currently too tired to come up with any brilliant plans for the tokens that have not yet been distributed. In my current addled mind burning doesn't sound fair, but a mining like lottery distribution might not be feasible, so I'll add this to my always increasing todo list for when my brain is closer to it's usual rickety performance.
-
Why would it not be better to give some of the pts strategically to form partnerships with a solid footprint in alternative media and//or companies with philosophical characteristics that would help to further bootstrap the industry?
Are all readers, except bytemaster and Agent86, on this forum dyslexic?
Everybody responding to my words –READ MY POST before answering.
*donkeypong* – you do not have to put this effort. For you registration time on this forum is all that matters, so no need for you to try reading. It will not change my registration date!
-
Why would it not be better to give some of the pts strategically to form partnerships with a solid footprint in alternative media and//or companies with philosophical characteristics that would help to further bootstrap the industry?
Are all readers, except bytemaster and Agent86, on this forum dyslexic?
Everybody responding to my words –READ MY POST before answering.
*donkeypong* – you do not have to put this effort. For you registration time on this forum is all that matters, so no need for you to try reading. It will not change my registration date!
I would like to address your previous post in a non confrontational way. It seems that there is a lot of heated posts on this forum and I think we could all be happier if we were more polite. It is clear that dan has made updates and changes at multiple times since last november. Each time there has been a mix of reactions ranging from ecstatic to livid. The important part that seems to get lost in the noise is that every change/update made is done in a way that increases the value proposition for those invested. AGS was a phenomenal deal for PTS holders if one could see through the curtain of technical and economic development. Similarly whats happening here is that instead of spending the remaining PTS on security, it will now be used to get people excited and incentivized to use bitshares. From where I stand we have just allocated costs away from security to marketing. When viewed in that light this development is a great thing for the strength of the community....... which is currently being tested due to delays in product development. I think this is a great idea, but I would also caution invictus that the worst thing they could do would be to use this to pump bitshares without a viable product. You have lost the attention of a large portion of the target market because of "broken promises". For this great marketing idea to mean anything your gonna need to put some software out first. The team knows this and so does the community. I'm excited to play a role in the future of BTS.
-
The important part that seems to get lost in the noise is that every change/update made is done in a way that increases the value proposition for those invested. AGS was a phenomenal deal for PTS holders if one could see through the curtain of technical and economic development. Similarly whats happening here is that instead of spending the remaining PTS on security, it will now be used to get people excited and incentivized to use bitshares.
I will try to adhere to your polite tone!
I do not argue with the need for marketing! (read my post, please.)
My post is regarding Stan's stance (bytemaster kind of distanced himself from this proposition in his earlier post) - ‘You fools out here, we have the best marketing Idea. Instead of giving you 15% (i.e. not diluting your shares as promised), we will take those money and PROMISE to give you 2X….10X return.’
My point is ‘If we have 15% of the PTS, let’s put our collective brain and decide what is the best way to spend them’
-
The important part that seems to get lost in the noise is that every change/update made is done in a way that increases the value proposition for those invested. AGS was a phenomenal deal for PTS holders if one could see through the curtain of technical and economic development. Similarly whats happening here is that instead of spending the remaining PTS on security, it will now be used to get people excited and incentivized to use bitshares.
I will try to adhere to your polite tone!
I do not argue with the need for marketing! (read my post, please.)
My post is regarding Stan's stance (bytemaster kind of distanced himself from this proposition in his earlier post) - ‘You fools out here, we have the best marketing Idea. Instead of giving you 15% (i.e. not diluting your shares as promised), we will take those money and PROMISE to give you 2X….10X return.’
My point is ‘If we have 15% of the PTS, let’s put our collective brain and decide what is the best way to spend them’
I have read and considered all of your posts in this thread. You bring up a good point, If PTS is bigger than invictus why don't we get to decide. Fair. The other thing to consider is that the main value prop right now are the DACS that invictus is building. This might not be the case in the future, but it is right now. If we all decide to honor PTS as it is now instead of PTS with DPOS then we would probably win that fight. To me it seems that DPOS+marketing is the way to go so I will be supporting that chain. But thats the point right, invictus can't do much without a community. We need each other to create value. Technically invictus can't do anything but share idea's and suggest that we all choose to use them in the same way.
-
+5%
Just, trying to say, mostly to the other posters, not you smiley35:
- Have a little backbone and voice your opinion what is best for you (us)! Do not just stand up and applause whatever “Stan’ says is ‘The next best thing after the hot water’ “.
- Do not let Stan claim something that is not his, just because “He knows, best what to do with it”.
- And lastly, do not attack someone defending your interest, just to gain points in the eye of the master.
-
+5%
Just, trying to say, mostly to the other posters, not you smiley35:
- Have a little backbone and voice your opinion what is best for you (us)! Do not just stand up and applause whatever “Stan’ says is ‘The next best thing after the hot water’ “.
- Do not let Stan claim something that is not his, just because “He knows, best what to do with it”.
- And lastly, do not attack someone defending your interest, just to gain points in the eye of the muster.
+5%
Sounds like good advice.
-
But the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS as theirs, as something that belongs to them...
I suppose everything is a matter of perspective, but currently those funds are earmarked for paying miners to burn electricity. So the PTS community / shareholders are the ones who should vote on what to do with the remaining PTS. I3 Ltd (AGS fund) controls something like 20% of PTS and so would benefit greatly (far more than any other single actor) by stopping the dilution of PTS and not giving anything away.
So it is a question of what the remaining PTS shareholders wish to do. In the interest of separating development from marketing I have left Stan, Brian, Gregory, and Arlen to work with the community to develop the best plans. I am not a dictator in these things.
Personally I suggested to them that PTS holders should get some benefit as well: ie give x% to PTS holders. However, I can also see that we intended there to be equal shares in PTS/AGS long-term.
In my opinion the arrogance is in assuming we are arrogant. In reality we are just people trying to do the best by everyone and improve the value of what everyone is holding.
We also would not be changing the deal for PTS holders: we said that there would be 2M + 1% inflation and reserved the right to fork the chain at any point to upgrade it. In this particular instance the PTS holders go from having 1% inflation to steady deflation from trx fees. Still a win for them.
I agree with you it is a matter of perspective. But why can't you consider this from the perspective of investors. Of course you guys are happy with this proposal, since you hold hostage of the fund, which constitutes 20% of total shares. But in our investors' point of view, we have donated more to the AGS fund since PTS has increased in value. Please don't say that you guys are doing this for the mutual benefit of us all, for the whole industry. NO! You are doing this because you want more for yourselves and you are using the PTS we donated and turn them against us.
Due to 3I's repeated history of bouncing checks, most investors (me included) have lost faith in you guys, and it is not unreasonable to put it that Stan's PROMISE of 2x,...10X return is highly improbable. So, please, do us a favor and don't screw up on those unmined PTS!
Pardon me if I am being a troll here. Wish BitShares the best.
-
Due to 3I's history it is not unreasonable to put it that Stan's PROMISE of 2x,...10X return is highly improbable. So, please, do us a favor and don't screw up on those unmined PTS!
If 'improbable' was 'unproven' I would give +1
-
Decentralized competition is what we're after. All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it. We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!
We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code. Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it. No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support. The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.
Now here's the thing:
Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!
That's how our industry works. That's how every change proposal happens. Soft forks and let the industry choose!
Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.
That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market! What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.
So nothing has changed with PTS. Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.
But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).
If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders. If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that. Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out. Or not.
Nobody's rights have been violated. A new competing protoDAC has been announced! (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1). Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.
And so are we. :)
-
Due to 3I's history it is not unreasonable to put it that Stan's PROMISE of 2x,...10X return is highly improbable. So, please, do us a favor and don't screw up on those unmined PTS!
If 'improbable' was 'unproven' I would give +1
I made no such PROMISE.
I said, "We are aiming for 2x, 3x, ... 10x... growth in value - of the whole industry."
This is the same syndrome that drives most of the false accusations that clutter up this forum. We share a goal, a mere aspiration, and before you know it it becomes a PROMISE.
:)
-
Stan, seems like you are striving to catch somebody use a wrong word (though the example you try to cash on seems auto/google translation) to prove you did not poop up today.
BTW the guy that posted most angrily today -Simeon - was the guy who brought me to Bitshares, he has more than 3K PTS invested in AGS (pre-Feb 28th PTS, bought for real $ and invested in AGS; so >$24K invested in AGS), so careful when you curse the hand that feeds you.
-
Wow, Simeon sounds really negative for someone with a stake in this. Have a little patience, people! You might be a billionaire in another year or two, but it's not gonna happen by this time next week! Regarding Stan's use of language, I don't think he's the one that's trying to catch people using a wrong word. He's trying to set the record straight when others twist his words (intentionally or not) into misunderstandings and rumors. If someone in his position is not careful, then pretty soon, these rumors about Invictus' 'promises' spiral out of their control. The last thing they want is people accusing them of over-promising. Goals matter, and Bitshares is aiming to deliver great things.
-
Stan, seems like you are striving to catch somebody use a wrong word (though the example you try to cash on seems auto/google translation) to prove you did not poop up today.
BTW the guy that posted most angrily today -Simeon - was the guy who brought me to Bitshares, he has more than 3K PTS invested in AGS (pre-Feb 28th PTS, bought for real $ and invested in AGS; so >$24K invested in AGS), so careful when you curse the hand that feeds you.
I never curse anybody. :)
-
Decentralized competition is what we're after. All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it. We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!
We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code. Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it. No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support. The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.
Now here's the thing:
Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!
That's how our industry works. That's how every change proposal happens. Soft forks and let the industry choose!
Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.
That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market! What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.
So nothing has changed with PTS. Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.
But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).
If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders. If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that. Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out. Or not.
Nobody's rights have been violated. A new competing protoDAC has been announced! (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1). Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.
And so are we. :)
So, Stan, you're pretty determined to suck every last bit of value out of PTS, huh.
- Do you really need more funding for promotion, support, etc? Are 5,000 BTC + 340,000 PTS worth of donations not enough for you?
- Distributing the remaining PTS to AGS holders are the most obvious solution that would benefit your investors. Can't you see that at all?
- Don't you have any idea that this move would put you into a position that's against PTS and AGS holders?
I understand completely, that 3I has reserved the right to launch a competing protoDAC, along with other rights that you guys reserved as well, like yeah, "disavow anything you ever said on this forum". Well played.
But if you really want BitShares to succeed, you've got to work for the true benefit of the investors (PTS/AGS holders), instead of playing your little tricks to gradually suck everybody's money into your own pocket. I don't think you guys have the balls to piss the VCs off like this if you were to get money from VCs. And the whole idea of AGS is just scam, but we have no other choice but to donate all our ass off, otherwise our shares got diluted. But you managed to raised millions via AGS anyway. We tolerated it, so could you please just stop asking for money right now and firkin deliver?
-
Wow, Simeon sounds really negative for someone with a stake in this. Have a little patience, people! You might be a billionaire in another year or two, but it's not gonna happen by this time next week! Regarding Stan's use of language, I don't think he's the one that's trying to catch people using a wrong word. He's trying to set the record straight when others twist his words (intentionally or not) into misunderstandings and rumors. If someone in his position is not careful, then pretty soon, these rumors about Invictus' 'promises' spiral out of their control. The last thing they want is people accusing them of over-promising. Goals matter, and Bitshares is aiming to deliver great things.
Billionaire in a year or two? What a joke!
Look around the Bitcoin 2.0 space, is it so hard to convince yourself that BitShares is the least competitive one (well, at least up til now)? I don't mean to say that to hurt this community, but come on! Your optimistic viewpoint should be based on real progress they've made instead of some blind belief, is it?
We should urge 3I to put themselves together and go for the right direction, instead of letting them to lead us by the nose.
-
Do I have to be dead serious with everything I write? Figure of speech, my friend. Obviously, I do believe Bitshares will be successful. Those other "2.0's" are child's play compared to what this will become: a paradigm changer.
-
Decentralized competition is what we're after. All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it. We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!
We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code. Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it. No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support. The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.
Now here's the thing:
Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!
That's how our industry works. That's how every change proposal happens. Soft forks and let the industry choose!
Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.
That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market! What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.
So nothing has changed with PTS. Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.
But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).
If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders. If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that. Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out. Or not.
Nobody's rights have been violated. A new competing protoDAC has been announced! (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1). Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.
And so are we. :)
So, Stan, you're pretty determined to suck every last bit of value out of PTS, huh.
- Do you really need more funding for promotion, support, etc? Are 5,000 BTC + 340,000 PTS worth of donations not enough for you?
- Distributing the remaining PTS to AGS holders are the most obvious solution that would benefit your investors. Can't you see that at all?
- Don't you have any idea that this move would put you into a position that's against PTS and AGS holders?
I understand completely, that 3I has reserved the right to launch a competing protoDAC, along with other rights that you guys reserved as well, like yeah, "disavow anything you ever said on this forum". Well played.
But if you really want BitShares to succeed, you've got to work for the true benefit of the investors (PTS/AGS holders), instead of playing your little tricks to gradually suck everybody's money into your own pocket. I don't think you guys have the balls to piss the VCs off like this if you were to get money from VCs. And the whole idea of AGS is just scam, but we have no other choice but to donate all our ass off, otherwise our shares got diluted. But you managed to raised millions via AGS anyway. We tolerated it, so could you please just stop asking for money right now and firkin deliver?
The issue has nothing to do with capturing more money.
Our AGS-sponsored R&D generated a windfall because the upgraded PTS2 would not need to hire miners.
We are figuring out what to do with the million dollar windfall.
We are giving it all away.
Sounds pretty sneaky to me!
-
Decentralized competition is what we're after. All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it. We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!
We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code. Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it. No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support. The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.
Now here's the thing:
Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!
That's how our industry works. That's how every change proposal happens. Soft forks and let the industry choose!
Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.
That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market! What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.
So nothing has changed with PTS. Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.
But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).
If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders. If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that. Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out. Or not.
Nobody's rights have been violated. A new competing protoDAC has been announced! (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1). Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.
And so are we. :)
So, Stan, you're pretty determined to suck every last bit of value out of PTS, huh.
- Do you really need more funding for promotion, support, etc? Are 5,000 BTC + 340,000 PTS worth of donations not enough for you?
- Distributing the remaining PTS to AGS holders are the most obvious solution that would benefit your investors. Can't you see that at all?
- Don't you have any idea that this move would put you into a position that's against PTS and AGS holders?
I understand completely, that 3I has reserved the right to launch a competing protoDAC, along with other rights that you guys reserved as well, like yeah, "disavow anything you ever said on this forum". Well played.
But if you really want BitShares to succeed, you've got to work for the true benefit of the investors (PTS/AGS holders), instead of playing your little tricks to gradually suck everybody's money into your own pocket. I don't think you guys have the balls to piss the VCs off like this if you were to get money from VCs. And the whole idea of AGS is just scam, but we have no other choice but to donate all our ass off, otherwise our shares got diluted. But you managed to raised millions via AGS anyway. We tolerated it, so could you please just stop asking for money right now and firkin deliver?
Would you mind elaborating, because I don't quite get the logic behind your reasoning.
How do you see this as "sucking" all value and it being a bad thing? I also am a bit confused about the dilution of your shares if you just kept a hold of your PTS. Because from an ROI point of view PTS seems to be the big scam, because they get all the benefits of the AGS fundraiser and the projects that paid for, without needing themselves to invest in anything. I'd like it if someone could explain to me how PTS-holders are not getting anything other than a sickening better deal than people investing directly into AGS.
Could very well be I'm missing some very important points, but if you just number conclusions, without the reasoning that led you to them, that doesn't help in clearing things up.
-
I really don't get what is the frustration here...
Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!
The plan is to distribute the remaining PTS to the existing PTS holders and create 2 mil PTS2 which will also be distributed to the existing PTS holders, or I miss understood something?
For every PTS we hold we will get now +15% PTS and 1PTS2? PTS2 will not need any mining and will be liquid?
How on earth can this not be good?
-
Decentralized competition is what we're after. All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it. We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!
We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code. Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it. No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support. The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.
Now here's the thing:
Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!
That's how our industry works. That's how every change proposal happens. Soft forks and let the industry choose!
Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.
That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market! What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.
So nothing has changed with PTS. Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.
But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).
If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders. If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that. Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out. Or not.
Nobody's rights have been violated. A new competing protoDAC has been announced! (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1). Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.
And so are we. :)
So, Stan, you're pretty determined to suck every last bit of value out of PTS, huh.
- Do you really need more funding for promotion, support, etc? Are 5,000 BTC + 340,000 PTS worth of donations not enough for you?
- Distributing the remaining PTS to AGS holders are the most obvious solution that would benefit your investors. Can't you see that at all?
- Don't you have any idea that this move would put you into a position that's against PTS and AGS holders?
I understand completely, that 3I has reserved the right to launch a competing protoDAC, along with other rights that you guys reserved as well, like yeah, "disavow anything you ever said on this forum". Well played.
But if you really want BitShares to succeed, you've got to work for the true benefit of the investors (PTS/AGS holders), instead of playing your little tricks to gradually suck everybody's money into your own pocket. I don't think you guys have the balls to piss the VCs off like this if you were to get money from VCs. And the whole idea of AGS is just scam, but we have no other choice but to donate all our ass off, otherwise our shares got diluted. But you managed to raised millions via AGS anyway. We tolerated it, so could you please just stop asking for money right now and firkin deliver?
Would you mind elaborating, because I don't quite get the logic behind your reasoning.
How do you see this as "sucking" all value and it being a bad thing? I also am a bit confused about the dilution of your shares if you just kept a hold of your PTS. Because from an ROI point of view PTS seems to be the big scam, because they get all the benefits of the AGS fundraiser and the projects that paid for, without needing themselves to invest in anything. I'd like it if someone could explain to me how PTS-holders are not getting anything other than a sickening better deal than people investing directly into AGS.
Could very well be I'm missing some very important points, but if you just number conclusions, without the reasoning that led you to them, that doesn't help in clearing things up.
- 3I sucks the remaining unmined PTS into their own holding. No matter what they say and what they intend to do with those PTS, it is under their control. I wonder why they are so reluctant to spend the AGS fund to do all the marketing and bounties.
- Why is it a bad thing? It's because I don't trust 3I anymore. They've become the single point of failure in the whole project. In regard to the AGS fund, they are not open to suggestions from the community. And the worst part is that they seem to keep the AGS fund as their salaries for the next several years. Salaries! Not for the development of the whole industry.
- I'm sorry, but what you said about PTS is completely incomprehensible to me. Here's what I think of PTS: PTS and AGS will get equal share of other DACs if they can ever launch successfully: that's basically the intrinsic value of PTS and AGS. According the current ratio between PTS and AGS, a reasonable man would donate AGS, in sacrifice of the liquidity of PTS. This is the evil side of AGS: If you donate PTS in exchange for AGS, the donated PTS goes to 3I but they still have equity among those DACs; if you donate BTC in exchange for AGS, those BTC don't have equity value. And the price of PTS depends on this ratio, which inherently lost value. Simply put, 3I launched AGS to tax the PTS holders on stupidity, and the PTS holders don't have other choice since 3I makes the rules! Do the math yourselves, guys!
-
3I sucks the remaining unmined PTS into their own holding. No matter what they say and what they intend to do with those PTS, it is under their control. I wonder why they are so reluctant to spend the AGS fund to do all the marketing and bounties.
Why is it a bad thing? It's because I don't trust 3I anymore. They've become the single point of failure in the whole project. In regard to the AGS fund, they are not open to suggestions from the community. And the worst part is that they seem to keep the AGS fund as their salaries for the next several years. Salaries! Not for the development of the whole industry.
I'm sorry, but what you said about PTS is completely incomprehensible to me. Here's what I think of PTS: PTS and AGS will get equal share of other DACs if they can ever launch successfully: that's basically the intrinsic value of PTS and AGS. According the current ratio between PTS and AGS, a reasonable man would donate AGS, in sacrifice of the liquidity of PTS. This is the evil side of AGS: If you donate PTS in exchange for AGS, the donated PTS goes to 3I but they still have equity among those DACs; if you donate BTC in exchange for AGS, those BTC don't have equity value. And the price of PTS depends on this ratio, which inherently lost value. Simply put, 3I launched AGS to tax the PTS holders on stupidity, and the PTS holders don't have other choice since 3I makes the rules! Do the math yourselves, guys!
I think you are missing the point here... I3 is currently the bigger shareholder of AGS / PTS so if they fail, they will lose a lot of money as well. Of course we will lose proportionally a lot more because we have made a very bad investment whereby I3 will have some BTCs and some money a long the way. So the question is do you believe that all this is a scam? If yes then you shouldn't have invested in the first place. If you don't think it is a scam then...patience my friend...I am sure in the end you won't be disappointing. You may have done better if you have invested in some other coins (NXT, DRK,BC) and you would have already x2,x5,x10 already, whereby now it will take obviously more time to get these profits, but I think that once they deliver it will worth the patience. In the end of the day these are all new!
Having said all that, it is not a bad thing that most of the shares belong to the ones that are trying to deliver the product and all the future products that will honor the social consensus because sharks will always eat the small fishes..
Personally I can't wait for PTS2. And I don't care about the extra 15% dividend as long it creates a media buzz!
The only thing that I believe I3 is doing really bad so far is that they have not used the AGS funding effectively. But I am believe that once they deliver Bitshares X they will start using all this funding more effectively (hire 10 times more developers, major marketing efforts, create media buzz, educate people outside cryptos the benefits of DACs etc...)
-
http://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=11m40s
-
http://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=11m40s
+5%
-
http://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=11m40s
This is great! Incentivize every customer to recruit 2 or 3 more customers. Explosive growth. "Like bacteria in a petri dish."
(http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/00321c4d72f_0.thumbnail.jpg)
Elon Musk expended ~$60M to do that.
-
+5%
This is exactly what I was saying...
Personally I can't wait for PTS2. And I don't care about the extra 15% dividend as long it creates a media buzz!
the 15% should be donated for this kind of marketing. But it should be very transparent so you do not have "premine" accusations, or money for salaries etc... Make a good marketing plan and execute it in a transparent way!
-
I really don't get what is the frustration here...
Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!
The plan is to distribute the remaining PTS to the existing PTS holders and create 2 mil PTS2 which will also be distributed to the existing PTS holders, or I miss understood something?
For every PTS we hold we will get now +15% PTS and 1PTS2? PTS2 will not need any mining and will be liquid?
How on earth can this not be good?
What part do you not get?
PTS holders now have 100% of the PTS.
After the new PTS 2.0 come to life, they will own 1.65/2 or about 82% of generally the same thing and I3 will grab the rest.
Plus Stan thinks we are stupid enough to not get this picture, and must be happy because ‘He/I3 will do such great thing with this new money, that we can hardly imagine, the great benefits that wait us’
-
Plus Stan thinks we are stupid enough to not get this picture, and must be happy because ‘He/I3 will do such great thing with this new money, that we can hardly imagine, the great benefits that wait us’
Fair enough for me :-)
i am running in full-t(h)rust mode :-)
-
Fair enough for me :-)
i am running in full-t(h)rust mode :-)
+5% from me as well. I would rather have 15% less shares and this 15% is well spent to create serious media buzz rather than have 15% more on some shares that are constantly lose their value...
What part do you not get?
What part you do not get?
This is great! Incentivize every customer to recruit 2 or 3 more customers. Explosive growth. "Like bacteria in a petri dish."
-
What part do you not get?
PTS holders now have 100% of the PTS.
After the new PTS 2.0 come to life, they will own 1.65/2 or about 82% of generally the same thing
Either way, PTS would reach 2,000,000 soon anyway (by mining otherwise), so your 82% is going to be the same.
-
What part do you not get?
PTS holders now have 100% of the PTS.
After the new PTS 2.0 come to life, they will own 1.65/2 or about 82% of generally the same thing
Either way, PTS would reach 2,000,000 soon anyway (by mining otherwise), so your 82% is going to be the same.
Exactly and also don't forget the 1% inflation after the 2 million would have been reached.
-
I want your public opinion "Decentralized Application". Are you happy now?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4557.msg57452#msg57452 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4557.msg57452#msg57452)
-
What part do you not get?
PTS holders now have 100% of the PTS.
After the new PTS 2.0 come to life, they will own 1.65/2 or about 82% of generally the same thing
Either way, PTS would reach 2,000,000 soon anyway (by mining otherwise), so your 82% is going to be the same.
Exactly and also don't forget the 1% inflation after the 2 million would have been reached.
What part do you not get?
PTS holders now have 100% of the PTS.
After the new PTS 2.0 come to life, they will own 1.65/2 or about 82% of generally the same thing
Either way, PTS would reach 2,000,000 soon anyway (by mining otherwise), so your 82% is going to be the same.
Fair enough for me :-)
i am running in full-t(h)rust mode :-)
+5% from me as well. I would rather have 15% less shares and this 15% is well spent to create serious media buzz rather than have 15% more on some shares that are constantly lose their value...
What part do you not get?
What part you do not get?
This is great! Incentivize every customer to recruit 2 or 3 more customers. Explosive growth. "Like bacteria in a petri dish."
Plus Stan thinks we are stupid enough to not get this picture, and must be happy because ‘He/I3 will do such great thing with this new money, that we can hardly imagine, the great benefits that wait us’
Fair enough for me :-)
i am running in full-t(h)rust mode :-)
“What part you do not get?”
I am in no way a god (like Zeus), neither play one (like Stan), so here are some of the things I do not get:
-How 15% dilution after/through 3 years is the same as 15% dilution right now?
-For what reason Invictus should be the owner of said 300K dilution shares.
-How do you ‘good I3 dogs’ think that somebody who has spent, 23K $ for this website: [http://bitshares.org/] will do a great job with the 1 mil of advertising money.
Other concerns here: [link]
-
somebody who has spent, 23K $ for this website: [http://bitshares.org/]
It seems to me also to expensive!
PS But to feel better read this: Our goverment's in Greece have spend for some websites more than 1 million euro.... each!!!! :)
http://www.alphafm.gr/archives/19587 (http://www.alphafm.gr/archives/19587)
And the translation here:
https://translate.google.gr/translate?sl=el&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=el&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alphafm.gr%2Farchives%2F19587&edit-text=&act=url (https://translate.google.gr/translate?sl=el&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=el&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alphafm.gr%2Farchives%2F19587&edit-text=&act=url)
-
“What part you do not get?”
I am in no way a god (like Zeus), neither play one (like Stan), so here are some of the things I do not get:
-How 15% dilution after/through 3 years is the same as 15% dilution right now?
-For what reason Invictus should be the owner of said 300K dilution shares.
-How do you ‘good I3 dogs’ think that somebody who has spent, 23K $ for this website: [http://bitshares.org/] will do a great job with the 1 mil of advertising money.
Other concerns here: [link]
Good I3 dogs, eh, if someone is not convinced of your opinion you start calling them names?
Are you even interested in having a conversation and hearing other points of view or not? Nothing is set in stone, no decision has been made yet and nobody was saying Invictus should receive the pts-stake, at least I wasn't.
I've collected my responses in a single post here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59378#msg59378) and I even proposed a good place to spend those 15% coins.
Short version: dpos is now close to operational for the simpler DACS like bitsharesME/DNS/Lotto and PTS. For those new DACs we need a working PTS-chain. PTS needs to be upgraded via hard fork. But if bitshares does not chose to upgrade to dpos now with pts, what kind of message would that send out to the world? They need to upgrade to dpos or lose credibility, so why not now? Switching to proof of stake means that the total amount of coins has to be there from the start, distributing via mining is no longer an option. So now Invictus was asking for suggestions on what to do with those remaining 15% coins, they did not suggest to keep it for themselves.
As for your 15% dilution of PTS, I say you got a free ride on the toolkits and DACS whose development was paid for by AGS-donators and not pts-speculators. You have received way more in value than the percentage amount you are focusing on is telling you. Also because of the AGS donations also by pts-owners, current PTS-holders can no longer fairly claim the right to the remaining 15%.
I agree with you that marketing and websites and even communication and pr have not been handled the best it could have. And like you I also want transparency in expenditures and make sure nobody is running of with the money or not doing the job they are paid for.
However the main goal imo was the development of a toolkit that could enable anyone to go toe to toe with NXT, Ripple, Ethereum you name it even compete with other bitshares chains. You can today run the working test-network with this new and improved dpos system that should be able to compete with all the current tech and that is worth a lot more than 25k and I even venture a lot more than PTS and AGS combined.
Do people realize the idea was not to create a sit on your ass and get rich scheme? DACs will take actual work from the people involved and we have only just started paying for some of the tools. But building the roads and driving the cars will be up to the participants and that will require a lot more funding than the pocket change AGS-funds and PTS-marketcap.
-
I am interested in having a discussion… on the other hand if you want something changed direct your arguments towards them (3I) and do not lick their hand by unnecessary attacking me for details, that do not matter anyway, as I am not in charge on anything...
-
Wow, Simeon sounds really negative for someone with a stake in this. Have a little patience, people! You might be a billionaire in another year or two, but it's not gonna happen by this time next week! Regarding Stan's use of language, I don't think he's the one that's trying to catch people using a wrong word. He's trying to set the record straight when others twist his words (intentionally or not) into misunderstandings and rumors. If someone in his position is not careful, then pretty soon, these rumors about Invictus' 'promises' spiral out of their control. The last thing they want is people accusing them of over-promising. Goals matter, and Bitshares is aiming to deliver great things.
Billionaire in a year or two? What a joke!
Look around the Bitcoin 2.0 space, is it so hard to convince yourself that BitShares is the least competitive one (well, at least up til now)? I don't mean to say that to hurt this community, but come on! Your optimistic viewpoint should be based on real progress they've made instead of some blind belief, is it?
We should urge 3I to put themselves together and go for the right direction, instead of letting them to lead us by the nose.
Exactly. Unfortunately you'll find (or at least I have) that if Invictus doesn't agree with you, your opinion doesn't much matter. If you want to do something they already want to do, that could work.
Do I have to be dead serious with everything I write? Figure of speech, my friend. Obviously, I do believe Bitshares will be successful. Those other "2.0's" are child's play compared to what this will become: a paradigm changer.
Uh huh :)
-
OK, the "Rest in Peace, DA" proposal is now off the table and I'm closing this thread.
While it is gratifying to see a few (obviously brilliant) people saw the potential,
It looks like it has failed to reach the necessary level of consensus to move forward.
A missed opportunity to get the max ROI for everyone, in my opinion,
But my opinion does not a consensus make.
See the newest thread for the current default proposal and let's move on to debate the merits of that.
Thanks for everyone's energetic input.
:)