BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 06:04:33 pm

Title: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 06:04:33 pm
1.
I am a supporter of the merger, because I see a need to only trade bitUSD on a single blockchain. Much easier for the user
2.
If you followed my posts it is not suprising, that I don’t support the proposed allocation of Bytemaster. But reality is, it would be impossible to change Bytemasters view, so I suppose it will be :
80% BTSX 7 % AGS 7% PTS 3% DNS 3% VOTE

Instead of complaining all the day I dicided to make a better proposal to fix some issues I see. My proposal will not change the BTS allocation, but will include some new entity.

Why is the allocation wrong?

If you take a calm look, it is clear that the merger is in favor of the Feb. 28 Snapshot and didn’t consider the risk the AGS and PTS donors took who donored of bought PTS after this snapshot. They are diluted the most.

So what can we do, to fix this unfairness?

I propose to create on BTS the first Asset on the exchange – GENESIS (GNS).

Genesis will hold the promises given AGS and PTS for the use of bitshares toolkit from 3rd parties with 20 % in the sharedrops.

The tweak with Genesis is, we will reverse the allocation done for the BTS creation:

20% BTSX : 40% AGS : 40% PTS or 1:2:2 = = 5 Million GNS

To give Genesis more value I propose as well to use them for the creation of new assets on the exchange instead of BTSX.

With this approach we could smooth some unfair allocations in favor on the Feb. 28 Snapshot.

I hope you like my idea!

More details:

Genesis – 5 Million  GNS – 1 BTSX : 2 AGS : 2 PTS allocation

What are GNS good for?





To make it much simpler for the enduser I would like to price all the fees in bitUSD and we could buy the needed GNS in the backround without confusing the user.

Creation of new assets:

a) BitAssets

BitAssets should be created by vote and every holder of Genesis will be deducted with the needed GNS for creating a new bitAsset. Everyone has to pay, because it benefits the whole community.
   Or
If someone is willing to pay the fees, he can also create a bitAsset

Assume a Altcoin want to be traded as bitAsset, the Altcoin community can create this new bitAsset and can fund it by crowdsale.



b) user issued Assets

Bitshares ME: (no restrictions)
       x bitUSD has to be paid, but in the backround the blockchain will buy the needed Genesis shares on the market and will increase the value with buying pressure of GNS
suppose to create a bitAsset without restriction you have to pay 100 bitUSD and the system will buy the needed GNS

 Bitshares X (for companies like Overstock; legal problems solved etc.)
suppose we charge 0,5% bitUSD for the issued valued shares
example: you create a new asset with 1.000.000 Overstock shares and the nominal value is 1 bitUSD. So the fees will be 5.000 bitUSD to be paid

this is just a quick idea, but i am looking for a solution everyone can agree. with GNS in place the late AGS and PTS donors can compensate overtime the cutted allocation in new DACs and the BTSX holder will also get a fair share.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: gamey on October 23, 2014, 06:14:16 pm

I like the first part.  Give BTS something, but it really makes no sense to sharedrop on top of BTS holders.  Thats just reality. 

You start losing me about bitAssets being paid by GNS.. Why ?  Seems like everything becomes overly complicated.  Someone should and I am guessing will create a PTS/AGS snapshot to continue the social consensus.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: toast on October 23, 2014, 06:16:37 pm
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: emski on October 23, 2014, 06:18:24 pm
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.
Exactly! And if III want to honor the original contract their 20% total stake in future DACs should be non-dilutable.
But again if this happens, why are PTS/AGS given a stake in BTS ?
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 06:18:59 pm

I like the first part.  Give BTS something, but it really makes no sense to sharedrop on top of BTS holders.  Thats just reality. 

You start losing me about bitAssets being paid by GNS.. Why ?  Seems like everything becomes overly complicated.  Someone should and I am guessing will create a PTS/AGS snapshot to continue the social consensus.

for simplicity i would agree, but to make the whole merger fairer i really feel that the supportes after Feb. 28 snapshot should be rewarded more, because they took a huge risk and loose now much of the promised value.

I would like to see that GNS would not matter in daily life, just if you want to create a Asset or shardrop. I would also like that the Asset could only create in bitUSD and are automatically converted from buying GNS. so for the enduser he can handle everything in bitUSD and for creating new Assets we will have GNS in the backround.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: xeroc on October 23, 2014, 06:19:50 pm
Interesting proposal ..

how are you calculating "liquidity" into the PTS/AGS equations?
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: gamey on October 23, 2014, 06:20:42 pm
I agree 50/50 too, but in interest of trying to build bridges etc I am also fine with 20% BTS.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 06:20:54 pm
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

thx toast - your support means a lot to me. but i would like to reverse the allocation so everyone in the new BTS will have some equal supply. with a reverse allocation no one can argue we prefer someone.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 06:22:37 pm
Interesting proposal ..

how are you calculating "liquidity" into the PTS/AGS equations?

i don't, but in fact PTS will get more because only 1.7 million are mined right now and 2 mill AGS are granted. So you could say PTS will get a premium.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: gamey on October 23, 2014, 06:26:47 pm


for simplicity i would agree, but to make the whole merger fairer i really feel that the supportes after Feb. 28 snapshot should be rewarded more, because they took a huge risk and loose now much of the promised value.

I would like to see that GNS would not matter in daily life, just if you want to create a Asset or shardrop. I would also like that the Asset could only create in bitUSD and are automatically converted from buying GNS. so for the enduser he can handle everything in bitUSD and for creating new Assets we will have GNS in the backround.

This is interesting.  We need a way to go back and forth with assets.  Say someone wants 20% of bitPuppies to go to PTS, then they can just transfer to those keys/addresses.  Now someone sells 10% of my bitPuppies as something of a crowdsale.   Now when it comes time for genesis block creation, can the asset owners be pulled out for a genesis block creation or is it not possible due to TITAN ? 
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: toast on October 23, 2014, 06:28:00 pm
We can't change the proposed allocation without hurting yet another group.

The #1 group to be hurt was DNS and we are taking lots of effort to make them whole.

The other groups are "close enough" in my eyes that changing the allocation now can only help insiders.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 06:31:52 pm


for simplicity i would agree, but to make the whole merger fairer i really feel that the supportes after Feb. 28 snapshot should be rewarded more, because they took a huge risk and loose now much of the promised value.

I would like to see that GNS would not matter in daily life, just if you want to create a Asset or shardrop. I would also like that the Asset could only create in bitUSD and are automatically converted from buying GNS. so for the enduser he can handle everything in bitUSD and for creating new Assets we will have GNS in the backround.

This is interesting.  We need a way to go back and forth with assets.  Say someone wants 20% of bitPuppies to go to PTS, then they can just transfer to those keys/addresses.  Now someone sells 10% of my bitPuppies as something of a crowdsale.   Now when it comes time for genesis block creation, can the asset owners be pulled out for a genesis block creation or is it not possible due to TITAN ? 


I don't know. But it should be possible to build in a snapshot feature for a share allocation. GNS should only be tradeable on the BTS exchange. So no external exchanges who are not supporting a sharedrop.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 06:33:26 pm
We can't change the proposed allocation without hurting yet another group.

The #1 group to be hurt was DNS and we are taking lots of effort to make them whole.

The other groups are "close enough" in my eyes that changing the allocation now can only help insiders.

what do you mean? my proposal is not a new allocation. The merger allocation will be aneffected, just the given promise is reallocated slightly and a asset is created to do it on the blockchain without the AGS/PTS outside snapshots.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Empirical1.1 on October 23, 2014, 06:34:30 pm
I personally think BTSX should keep 100%, add dilution & make a merger deal with Vote DAC. They can also make their best offer to DNS. BTSX can then compete by itself to either copy features or make merger deals.

PTS & AGS can go on as before.

(Edit: I want to bring AGS & PTS into BTSX to make one BitShares, but if the deal is viewed negatively, complicates BTSX and removes income then AGS & PTS are maybe better off competing separately. Though I will get behind whatever deal Bytemaster is for, just as I was behind the original deal even though it was too generous to PTS & my AGS imo.)
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: toast on October 23, 2014, 06:35:47 pm
We can't change the proposed allocation without hurting yet another group.

The #1 group to be hurt was DNS and we are taking lots of effort to make them whole.

The other groups are "close enough" in my eyes that changing the allocation now can only help insiders.

what do you mean? my proposal is not a new allocation. The merger allocation will be aneffected, just the given promise is reallocated slightly and a asset is created to do it on the blockchain without the AGS/PTS outside snapshots.

What do you mean "the given promise is reallocated?"  -  you just mean using AGS/PTS-based snapshots via GNS instead of BTS-based snapshots, right?
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: xeroc on October 23, 2014, 06:37:22 pm
GNS should only be tradeable on the BTS exchange.
you cannot enforce that :(
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: tonyk on October 23, 2014, 06:38:04 pm
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

I am pretty sure emski suggested such asset even before the distribution was announced.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: emski on October 23, 2014, 06:45:07 pm
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

I am pretty sure emski suggested such asset even before the distribution was announced.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0)
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 06:56:39 pm
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

I am pretty sure emski suggested such asset even before the distribution was announced.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0)

good to see the link. was sure i read the name in some post. i just added the reverse allocation and the need to create new assets with GNS to your idea
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: pc on October 23, 2014, 07:10:27 pm
I like the GNS idea (although I don't really see why BTSX should receive 20%). GNS would preserve liquidity of PTS for 3rd party DACs (the PTS blockchain will die because with the drop in value after nov-5 mining PTS is no longer economically viable).

I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: xeroc on October 23, 2014, 07:12:52 pm
I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.
He is proposing a user-issued assets ... that's not a bitasset .. no shorts .. no feeds .. just a token to be traded freely ..
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: emski on October 23, 2014, 07:17:01 pm
I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.
He is proposing a user-issued assets ... that's not a bitasset .. no shorts .. no feeds .. just a token to be traded freely ..
isnt bitasset any of the following ("market issued asset" or "user issued asset") ?
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: pc on October 23, 2014, 07:18:43 pm
Creation of new assets:

a) BitAssets

BitAssets should be created by vote and every holder of Genesis will be deducted with the needed GNS for creating a new bitAsset. Everyone has to pay, because it benefits the whole community.
   Or
If someone is willing to pay the fees, he can also create a bitAsset
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Brent.Allsop on October 23, 2014, 07:21:43 pm
These all look like great ideas, intermixed with a bunch of stupid comments and bad ideas.  Do you expect me, or The bytemaster to waste lots of time trying to read and digest all that is being said here, intermixed with all the garbage and changes?

My point being, discussing things like this is a complete waste of time for everyone.  You don't believe you can change the Bytemasters POV, but if you build enough consensus, with enough well reasoned and unanimously agreed on arguments, all very concisely stated (not needing to read 1000 posts to get the state of the art of what you are talking about) you would have a far better chance of having influence on him and everyone else.

We've started a consensus building survey topic on this issue over at Canonizer.com:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160

It would be much more efficient if people concisely describe your proposals, and create a new camp for them, and start building consensus for the ideas.  Getting something done, or convincing someone is not the problem; the only problem is building enough consensus.  Once you have anough consensus, you can do anything.  The first community that learns how to communicate concisely and quantitatively, and is best able to build a large consensus will win this crypto currency battle.

All the chaotic talk like this is just driving down the price of BTSX,, destroying consensus and fracturing the comunity.

Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Empirical1.1 on October 23, 2014, 07:22:25 pm
I like the GNS idea (although I don't really see why BTSX should receive 20%). GNS would preserve liquidity of PTS for 3rd party DACs (the PTS blockchain will die because with the drop in value after nov-5 mining PTS is no longer economically viable).

I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.

I don't mind an asset that exists 50/50 AGS & PTS on the BTS(X) blockchain that third parties can still honour, 20%+ if they value that demographic, but that asset shouldn't be entitled to any fees etc. or additional snapshot privileges imo.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: biophil on October 23, 2014, 07:33:40 pm
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

Yes! I will vote for this 100%.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: xeroc on October 23, 2014, 07:51:10 pm
isnt bitasset any of the following ("market issued asset" or "user issued asset") ?
hmm ... for me a bitAsset always denoted market-issued asset .. but it seems I am wrong here .. thanks for the clarification ..

//edit: however, we are talking bitUSD .. bitGLD .. but BEER, FREE, LOVE ..
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: toast on October 23, 2014, 07:52:11 pm
I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.
He is proposing a user-issued assets ... that's not a bitasset .. no shorts .. no feeds .. just a token to be traded freely ..
isnt bitasset any of the following ("market issued asset" or "user issued asset") ?

We've always used "bitasset" to mean market-pegged assets... But it's a terrible name for exactly this reason - it sounds like it could mean UIA
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: Shentist on October 23, 2014, 07:54:53 pm
isnt bitasset any of the following ("market issued asset" or "user issued asset") ?
hmm ... for me a bitAsset always denoted market-issued asset .. but it seems I am wrong here .. thanks for the clarification ..

//edit: however, we are talking bitUSD .. bitGLD .. but BEER, FREE, LOVE ..


in this case i didn't meant bitAsset just user Asset i change the wording.
#
no it is correct :D i stated 2 different principles to issue assets.

sry, for my poor englisch.
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: liondani on October 23, 2014, 09:04:29 pm
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

I am pretty sure emski suggested such asset even before the distribution was announced.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0)


emski has valid points, very interesting!
Title: Re: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!
Post by: gamey on October 23, 2014, 09:44:31 pm


I've changed my mind to 50/50 PTS/AGS.  The reason being that if someone wants to sharedrop to BTS, then that option is there regardless.  So forcing BTS into GENESIS just makes developers have fewer options, even if it does seem more amicable approach.