-
There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:
1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
4) We need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
6) We need to provide for long term funding and growth.
7) We need to resolve the consensus problem once and for all.
As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here. Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand. If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.
My Proposal:
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us. Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.
Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.
At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.
Once again... just proposals... everything will be thought out and community input is valued.
-
Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
YES! Lets do it!
Right now we have too many moving parts. Too much confusion for new people.
Too many different projects pulling everyone in all directions.
-
+5% +5% +5%
Simplify all the things! ;D
-
+5%
-
Focus our effort on dominating one area first, then once we are doing well, spread out to the others.
Like google first dominated search, built a revenue base, and then branched out.
-
Focus our effort on dominating one area first, then once we are doing well, spread out to the others.
Like google first dominated search, built a revenue base, and then branched out.
Exactly... but I cannot do this if there are people waiting for a return on their PTS / AGS.... thus the need to change things for everyones benefit.
-
And my confidence is fully restored!
-
Focus our effort on dominating one area first, then once we are doing well, spread out to the others.
Like google first dominated search, built a revenue base, and then branched out.
Exactly... but I cannot do this if there are people waiting for a return on their PTS / AGS.... thus the need to change things for everyones benefit.
Yes, give everyone a piece of Bitshares so that we are all united.
-
This is the one Darwinian competitor that beats both BTSX and VOTE: BTS
Congratulations everyone. Nice work.
-
I'm utterly speechless.
Just remember those that scream the loudest....
Well they scream the loudest.
I will definitely be divesting. Where previously there was limited diversification now there will be near 0.
I think you'd kill the social contract, although DAC developers could continue to use it I suppose. Those who care get their stakes, those who don't keep their wallet oh well.
-
And my confidence is fully restored!
Me too. :)
I was reading the VOTE thread and freaking out. It seemed like the devs were focusing all their time on something that would end up competing with BTSX and that I couldnt buy right now (snapshot passed and not yet tradable!).
Lets bring everyone together into our flagshit product, and focus on making it big first. Make sure everyone in our community has a stake in the same project and are working together on it.
-
I'm utterly speechless.
Just remember those that scream the loudest....
Well they scream the loudest.
I will definitely be divesting. Where previously there was limited diversification now there will be near 0.
I think you'd kill the social contract, although DAC developers could continue to use it I suppose. Those who care get their stakes, those who don't keep their wallet oh well.
BTS X could continue with its current set of rules and fund its current status. What would you divest into? Because if we knew what you would divest into then that will help us know where we are week and what needs to be done to solidify it.
-
I'm utterly speechless.
Just remember those that scream the loudest....
Well they scream the loudest.
I will definitely be divesting. Where previously there was limited diversification now there will be near 0.
I think you'd kill the social contract, although DAC developers could continue to use it I suppose. Those who care get their stakes, those who don't keep their wallet oh well.
BTS X could continue with its current set of rules and fund its current status. What would you divest into? Because if we knew what you would divest into then that will help us know where we are week and what needs to be done to solidify it.
Honestly, I read all your rules then skipped the tail end of your post. I thought you said drop *all* DACs. So I interpreted it like that. I was so perturbed I didn't read your whole post for clarifcation. So that is where I was coming from.
-
So is KeyID/DNS DAC going to be killed off ? Or is that going to continue since it should be self-funding ?
This is just a discussion... no decisions have been made and I am not speaking for the entire team. I am just trying to find a solution that aligns peoples loyalties.
Right now Toast is 100% responsible for KeyID / DNS and it will be up to him and the DNS community.
1) This idea has not been run by Toast, Follow my Vote, or Agent 86
2) This is just a proposal that I want feedback on
-
@Gamey: I thought your motto was, "What, Me Worry?"
:)
-
I understand and agree with the statement that "we need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us."
However, I don't see why or how anybody who participated in AGS or for that matter PTS after the snapshot would have any expectation of getting a stake in BTSX.
The proposal to have a lock-in period of 6 months is at best a hack and at worst arbitrary.
-
I am pretty sure the prices of BTSX, PTS, etc are now about to freak out once everyone sees this..but I have no idea in which direction. :)
-
I understand and agree with the statement that "we need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us."
However, I don't see why or how anybody who participated in AGS or for that matter PTS after the snapshot would have any expectation of getting a stake in BTSX.
The proposal to have a lock-in period of 6 months is at best a hack and at worst arbitrary.
I'm sure the hack can be refined.
But if we are doing a merger of BTSX with various future DACS to form *BTS* then they definitely do have a valid interest.
-
Bytemaster, I am glad you posted this. While I'm not sure if you've read my comments, I am sure you are aware of my, and others', concerns and looking for a way to resolve them. Awesome!
I think consolidating is a great idea. The way I see it should be is this:
1. Have one DAC (bitshares) with one token (bitshare) you can invest in if you want to be a part of it.
2. Have multiple products from this DAC, i.e., bithshares exchange (x), bitshares vote, bitshares dns, bitshares ID
3. Have these products be tied together with one fungible currency (bitUSD), as well as coordinated ID system and email system and everything (hmmm this is sounding like a succesful model we are all familiar with....GOOGLE!
4. I think you would still need btsx to make bitshares x work, I'm not sure about that or not. Could use some discussion I think.
5. I am totally for resolving and simplyfing AGS and PTS in some way, must be fair of course
6. Dilution is fine if everyone votes on it, because as you say, bitshares are not currency, they ARE a share in a company
What does everyone think? Will totally linking everything together cause problems, with voting for instance. I don't know, but I think not.
-
I understand and agree with the statement that "we need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us."
However, I don't see why or how anybody who participated in AGS or for that matter PTS after the snapshot would have any expectation of getting a stake in BTSX.
The proposal to have a lock-in period of 6 months is at best a hack and at worst arbitrary.
They didn't expect to get a stake in BTSX... but they did in domains, voting, and every other idea we came up with. If we add those to BTSX you better believe they would expect a cut to be fair. I picked 6 months because that is how long I think it would be reasonable to expect some of those features in BTS.
-
It seems we're at a fork between expectations and reality. Hopefully we can merge without conflict :)
I agree with the 7 problem points in the OP. They need to be resolved. I think this proposal is a step in the right direction.
-
Just to stimulate your metaphorical thinking for what they are worth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions)
-
I really like the idea of a snapshotable token (PTS) that allows any third party developer to create a DAC and leverage the BitShares community. That idea is solid and doesn't need to be done away with. It only needs to be simplified: either combine AGS/PTS into one liquid asset on the BitShares exchange or use BTSX (BTS?) as the snapshotable token itself. Want to use the BitShares toolkit and get gain the support and network effect the entire community offers? Snapshot BTS.
-
So is KeyID/DNS DAC going to be killed off ? Or is that going to continue since it should be self-funding ?
This is just a discussion... no decisions have been made and I am not speaking for the entire team. I am just trying to find a solution that aligns peoples loyalties.
Right now Toast is 100% responsible for KeyID / DNS and it will be up to him and the DNS community.
1) This idea has not been run by Toast, Follow my Vote, or Agent 86
2) This is just a proposal that I want feedback on
I deleted this post once I realized my mistake. Sigh. It is a lot more reasonable to me now that I think about it and understand. I can't exactly +5% it though. I'd want to mull it over for days. I realize I have some attachment to the concept of PTS/AGS etc. So I am not necessarily rational as I should be in that area. As long as the core DACs are fired off and autonomous the idea seems palatable.
This basically just means rolling PTS/AGS into "Bitshares" and not going with the VOTE DAC.
God have mercy on us.
;)
-
It seems we're at a fork between expectations and reality. Hopefully we can merge without conflict :)
I agree with the 7 problem points in the OP. They need to be resolved. I think this proposal is a step in the right direction.
Yes, I think good things will come from this thread, whatever the decision is. This is a huge positive in my opinion. I am now more excited than ever about bitshares!
-
I understand and agree with the statement that "we need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us."
However, I don't see why or how anybody who participated in AGS or for that matter PTS after the snapshot would have any expectation of getting a stake in BTSX.
Yes, but they have other expectations that need to be met. How do you resolve the above 2 points and not have Bytemaster continue on to do what was uhm suggested by I3.
-
At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.
Yes. We are too new and small to afford so much division. The whole point of the multiple DACs is to be scalable. But we are too small to worry about scalability limits right now. We just need to worry about getting that critical network effect so that we aren't wiped out by a competitor that clones the BitShares toolkit with better marketing.
After we reach a point where we have a large network effect, large market cap, and lots of new features, we can then worry about splitting the DAC into multiple ones specializing in different industries.
We can argue the details of this plan over time, but for now I will say that I agree with the general principle behind it. However, the dilution point is really important. We need to make it clear that this is a DAC that we intend to use dilution to help fund our efforts and we also need to be clear about the particular mechanics behind how dilution will work and what control shareholders have over it.
Edit: Also who knows. Maybe we will find that the way we want to tackle the scalability problem in the future is to just make this BitShares DAC into a meta-DAC as discussed here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390). Maybe the community will decide it is more important to keep all BitAssets on one DAC despite the trade-offs that proposal introduces.
-
I really like the idea of a snapshotable token (PTS) that allows any third party developer to create a DAC and leverage the BitShares community. That idea is solid and doesn't need to be done away with. It only needs to be simplified: either combine AGS/PTS into one liquid asset on the BitShares exchange or use BTSX (BTS?) as the snapshotable token itself. Want to use the BitShares toolkit and get gain the support and network effect the entire community offers? Snapshot BTS.
I like this concept, if you want to create a new DAC and do the 10-20% airdrop share honoring thing, why not just take a snapshot of the main company shares bts. It still allows people to invest in future dacs just like PTS does and it simplifies everything and gives more value to bts!!!
-
I realize I have some attachment to the concept of PTS/AGS etc. So I am not necessarily rational as I should be in that area.
It takes some one with great perspective to admit this +5%
-
God have mercy on us.
That's the BTS motto :D
Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.
In the future, if a unified BTS can't handle the load, could overgrown parts just be moved into a separate DAC and sharedropped 100%?
edit:
I suggest that all future proposals change the subject to "Viability Discussion:xxxxxx" instead of "Proposal".
+5%
-
Bytemaster. You are bitsharesx in terms of the money. Money is the root.
In my understanding PTS is used for funding other DACs. Other DACs may fail, you have not yet.
The PTS in its development is supposed to fund the music, the insurance, the whatever there is a million possible different DACs.
The original holders took risks. Bitshares PTS is like a private equity fund, let them keep it. Just do not be distracted, I understand everyone is pushing and pulling on you. Do not lose friends or allies with eliminating the PTS stake holders, it allows developers to come in and lobby (I believe though I may be wrong)
If you want to later develop more DACs go for it. But bitshares/bitsharesx is the best and biggest and ill help you in the way I can.
Money is the root but as they say can be the root of evil.
Bitshares PTS also helps in brand cache, which is #12 out of 400+ coins. http://coinmarketcap.com/ (http://coinmarketcap.com/). If it disappears it may hurt bitsharesx in value of shares and you may make enemies.
UPDATE I made for Bytemaster/Dan
Right now you few enemies Dan, stay like that, that is the best way. Watch when you see my vision with bitsharesx, you will see it will be everything in terms of money. We must not fail where the "Paypal Mafia" ie, paypal.com failed.
-
I dont like the part with " unlimited dilution" :/
-
I dont like the part with " unlimited dilution" :/
Stakeholder approved dilution... I say this because the "hard rules" will force us into "consensus busting problems" in the future.
I am working on ideas for better control over the voting process for "hard forks"....
-
OP +5%
Today is a much better day for me and I hope everybody involved in the project.
Details can be worked out, so more people are happy with the details.
But the general idea is much, much better.
[Edit] It might be pretty obvious that I will be for the proposals in the OP... considering my dissatisfaction with the yesterdays announcement. I made it anyway because it not only addresses concern that I expressed out loud yesterdays, but also some that while not mentioned by me specifically were expressed by other posters and I partially or fully agree with them.
-
This makes a lot of sense to me. Hopefully it could be managed without endless squabbling over the allocations, particularly if Follow My Vote is merging in with their additional snapshot allocations. If the scaling becomes an issue eventually with too much bundling on one chain, it seems plausible that spinoffs could be created at that point.
6 month lock-in seems unnecessary. Let the weak hands sell to the HODLERS at their earliest convenience.
-
I like it. Three points:
(1) BitShares X is the heart of everything. If it is wildly successful, then Music, DNS, etc. will ride its coattails.
(2) The ecosystem needs to be cleaned up. And as part of this, people just discovering BitShares need a way to get hold of a stake, since these should not be reserved for those of us who spotted the opportunity earlier.
(3) Yet dilution needs to be capped. There can never be more than a certain # of shares. Period. This assurance must be made and kept.
One solution to rule them all is fine with me. Fix #3 above and you'll satisfy most of the people who would object to the big solution.
-
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
Also, to be clear, you mean fixed at the current $5 million buy out price for AGS and PTS each right? Because that is the what the market currently values all future BitShares DAC ideas even with including your Voting 2.0 teasers. You don't want to promise to buy PTS/AGS at the market price of PTS at the time of the snapshot, because then you can expect the price of PTS to shoot up to ridiculous amounts as people use it as an opportunity to get into BTSX cheap.
Edit: Actually sorry that is not correct, since the Voting teasers would affect the currently non-transferable Vote shares. Also wouldn't we want to include the market price of Notes and DNS in their too if we want to absorb their business models as well. Actually, figuring out what is "fair" to this community is going to be much harder than I thought...
-
I dont like the part with " unlimited dilution" :/
Stakeholder approved dilution... I say this because the "hard rules" will force us into "consensus busting problems" in the future.
I am working on ideas for better control over the voting process for "hard forks"....
In that case, i hope we can get a DAC in which stakeholders get to vote on the amount of "additional shares issuance" and " share buyback".
The point here is you should assure stakeholders that any decision made to further dilute BTS will "only" benefit the DAC as a whole.
-
Good dialogue, Good to see the meeting of the minds come together with great ideas. Dan Larimer is a smart guy and we are trusting that together we will guide and find green pastures and still waters.
disclosure (I am invested in btsx) (I am not invested in PTS or AGS)
Whatever system will be more efficient and keep us decentralized is probably the best means to reach our ends.
On a different note:
I have a question regarding btc and the block chain.
I know Dan is not a big fan of the btcblockchain, however many VC and companies as well as overstock are building a lot of infrastructure in it. And it is currently the largest network supported in the world. Would it be wrong to integrate some of bitshares technology to use the infrastructure as well?
(disclosure) I am invested in btc as well.
-
I really like the idea of a snapshotable token (PTS) that allows any third party developer to create a DAC and leverage the BitShares community. That idea is solid and doesn't need to be done away with. It only needs to be simplified: either combine AGS/PTS into one liquid asset on the BitShares exchange or use BTSX (BTS?) as the snapshotable token itself. Want to use the BitShares toolkit and get gain the support and network effect the entire community offers? Snapshot BTS.
I like this concept, if you want to create a new DAC and do the 10-20% airdrop share honoring thing, why not just take a snapshot of the main company shares bts. It still allows people to invest in future dacs just like PTS does and it simplifies everything and gives more value to bts!!!
The demographics of the 2 groups is going to be different. Just because someone has a lot of BTSX doesn't mean they're going to be good early adopters for every new DAC created. With PTS/AGS it means they have a specific interest in the area. You lose that when you mix it all together in one big stew pot.
A problem with these things is the volatility of it all. The numbers BM said seem reasonable, but what if they're way skewed at day of execution. Although I suppose they'll be pegged to each other once this is agreed upon and price will likely only go up.
-
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
Also, to be clear, you mean fixed at the current $5 million buy out price for AGS and PTS each right? Because that is the what the market currently values all future BitShares DAC ideas even with including your Voting 2.0 teasers. You don't want to promise to buy PTS/AGS at the market price of PTS at the time of the snapshot, because then you can expect the price of PTS to shoot up to ridiculous amounts as people use it as an opportunity to get into BTSX cheap.
Edit: Actually sorry that is not correct, since the Voting teasers would affect the currently non-transferable Vote shares. Also wouldn't we want to include the market price of Notes and DNS in their too if we want to absorb their business models as well. Actually, figuring out what is "fair" to this community is going to be much harder than I thought...
They wouldn't be getting into BTSX cheap.... given the same money buying PTS or BTSX will result in an equal stake at the end of the day (assuming efficient markets)... any PTS bump would be irrational.
-
Dan/bytemaster,
Dont put to much on your plate.
Let PTS live and be its on thing, just distance yourself from it. Someone else must head PTS, someone must be picked who is voted on by the community (this is if you run PTS which im thinking you do).
UPDATE for Bytemaster/Dan
You have $10 million possible in funding. You have already agreed to the 2 billion BTSX cap. Either your going to raise the BTSX share cap, or pay out of money you have on you, or?
Watch your burn rate, you need a 5 year burn rate in cash.
UPDATE No.2 for Bytemaster/Dan
If you raise the market cap by 10% people will flee BitsharesX and as ive been saying in private to Joey/Maybe Fuz it will go to 42 - 44 million market cap, at the least.
UPDATE No.3 for Bytemaster/Dan
Joey/Fuz are good strategiets, especially Joey. Both are ex-military and both know there stuff. I was trained to be a General at 5 years old but I would consider myself self-trained as a Intelligence Officer, though I have never been in the military as I went a different course.
UPDATE No.4 for Bytemaster/Dan
Consider me your own personal Central Intelligence Officer, though I do not work for the CIA and I am not American, even though I was conceived in the United States, San Diego, California. Any CIA Agent would not be able to tell you this so you must understand I do not work for them.
-
I dont like the part with " unlimited dilution" :/
Stakeholder approved dilution... I say this because the "hard rules" will force us into "consensus busting problems" in the future.
I am working on ideas for better control over the voting process for "hard forks"....
Excellent!
This really does show how adaptive bitshares can be! Look at bitcoin unable to adapt. Still mining away, still diluting to pay for "security", etc.
Bitshares is able to change and adapt to the situation at hand. Doing what you mentioned above will greatly help Bitshares maintain a competitive edge.
"...let the strongest live and the weakest die"- Charles Darwin
-
Dan/bytemaster,
Dont put to much on your plate.
Let PTS live and be its on thing, just distance yourself from it. Someone else must head PTS, someone must be picked who is voted on by the community (this is if you run PTS which im thinking you do).
Nobody runs PTS. Needs to be cleaned up.
-
Dan/bytemaster,
Dont put to much on your plate.
Let PTS live and be its on thing, just distance yourself from it. Someone else must head PTS, someone must be picked who is voted on by the community (this is if you run PTS which im thinking you do).
I am trying to consolidate down to one plate from many. Clean up the entire ecosystem... give people one option to get involved.. Buy BitShares. No more explaining allocations, no more snapshots, etc... just keep it simple.
-
I am trying to consolidate down to one plate from many. Clean up the entire ecosystem... give people one option to get involved.. Buy BitShares. No more explaining allocations, no more snapshots, etc... just keep it simple.
+5%
What's the opportunity cost of consolidation?
-
Dan/bytemaster,
Dont put to much on your plate.
Let PTS live and be its on thing, just distance yourself from it. Someone else must head PTS, someone must be picked who is voted on by the community (this is if you run PTS which im thinking you do).
UPDATE for Bytemaster/Dan
You have $10 million possible in funding. You have already agreed to the 2 billion BTSX cap. Either your going to raise the BTSX share cap, or pay out of money you have on you, or?
Watch your burn rate, you need a 5 year burn rate in cash.
UPDATE No.2 for Bytemaster/Dan
If you raise the market cap by 10% people will flee BitsharesX and as ive been saying in private to Joey/Maybe Fuz it will go to 42 - 44 million market cap, at the least.
Right now there is market demand for $5 million PTS and $50 million BTSX.... if these were two companies that "merged" the new company would likely have a value greater than the sum of their parts... rarely would the combined value go down.
If you are referring to changing from "fixed supply" to dilution via delegates.... that is something that BTSX community will have to decide. If someone wants to start a clone with the original 2B limit... then they can. Follow the network effect is all I have to say.
-
6 month lock-in seems unnecessary. Let the weak hands sell to the HODLERS at their earliest convenience.
It really only punishes those who don't have already have BTSX. It won't really help with consensus, but the idea is to make sure we don't get a haircut that is counter-productive. It also just moves the problem out 6 months... Hmm
-
6 month lock-in seems unnecessary. Let the weak hands sell to the HODLERS at their earliest convenience.
It really only punishes those who don't have already have BTSX. It won't really help with consensus, but the idea is to make sure we don't get a haircut that is counter-productive. It also just moves the problem out 6 months... Hmm
I am thinking that allowing people to "cash out early" at a discount is the way to smooth that out. Ie: Wait 6 months and get your full stake, wait 3 months and get 50%... modify this slightly and do it over 2 years to reflect the fact that the "payout horizon expectation" of these stakes is much longer.... giving them an "instant payout" would certainly bump the value of PTS in the short term....
-
6 month lock-in seems unnecessary. Let the weak hands sell to the HODLERS at their earliest convenience.
It really only punishes those who don't have already have BTSX. It won't really help with consensus, but the idea is to make sure we don't get a haircut that is counter-productive. It also just moves the problem out 6 months... Hmm
I am thinking that allowing people to "cash out early" at a discount is the way to smooth that out. Ie: Wait 6 months and get your full stake, wait 3 months and get 50%... modify this slightly and do it over 2 years to reflect the fact that the "payout horizon expectation" of these stakes is much longer.... giving them an "instant payout" would certainly bump the value of PTS in the short term....
What has made you calculate the economics/calculitic trajectory that you would want to leverage yourself in terms of the success of bitsharesx in 6 months or 2 years?
UPDATE
I understand 10% leverage.
UPDATE No.2 for Bytemaster/Dan
How long will this solution you have already thought of take? (plus or minus its guestimating time cost)
And do you want to leverage your team and time cost in this. It is a Saturday 9:33PM PST 12:33AM EST. You must be working hardcore already.
UPDATE No.3 for Bytemaster/Dan + Community
What is the reason behind getting rid of bitshares PTS? You do not want to turn into a gatekeeper.
Also having bitshares PTS means all Bitshares MUSIC, Bitshares DNS, Bitshares VOTE stays as Bitshares brand, instead of a competing brand coming up. Make your brand bigger, look at ISIS, ISIL, IS, the terrorist group, state and etc, they are doing it to make a brand.
-
They wouldn't be getting into BTSX cheap.... given the same money buying PTS or BTSX will result in an equal stake at the end of the day (assuming efficient markets)... any PTS bump would be irrational.
Hmm, I guess you are right. Okay, so then what about not crediting DNS, VOTE, and NOTE? Is it that the shareholders of those DACs are similar enough to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders that we aren't worried about market fragmentation by keeping those DACs independent and acting as "competition".
-
Right now there is market demand for $5 million PTS and $50 million BTSX.... if these were two companies that "merged" the new company would likely have a value greater than the sum of their parts... rarely would the combined value go down.
If you are referring to changing from "fixed supply" to dilution via delegates.... that is something that BTSX community will have to decide. If someone wants to start a clone with the original 2B limit... then they can. Follow the network effect is all I have to say.
Part of why I am not in favor of diluting for PTS/AGS stake is that I think PTS is overvalued at current rate. Maybe I'm naive for selling my PTS assuming there would be no "bail out" for its problems.
The merger metaphor is a bit broken as well. If we want to merge, shouldn't we merge with #1? I'd much prefer to give 1-10% new BTSX to BTC holders at a snapshot date.
-
Hard fork decision making process proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10150.new#new
-
So to encourage pole to stay we offering option based vested time period.
-
They wouldn't be getting into BTSX cheap.... given the same money buying PTS or BTSX will result in an equal stake at the end of the day (assuming efficient markets)... any PTS bump would be irrational.
Hmm, I guess you are right. Okay, so then what about not crediting DNS, VOTE, and NOTE? Is it that the shareholders of those DACs are similar enough to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders that we aren't worried about market fragmentation by keeping those DACs independent and acting as "competition".
DNS / VOTE had the same snapshot.
Not talking about honoring the 30% for FMV.
NOTE is independent and will be a competitor...
So we are only talking about:
1) users who bought DNS after the snapshot and new DNS issued
2) NOTES issued via their presale...
I think the primary issue people are concerned about is where my time and energy will be devoted... to a lesser extent where toast is focused... and to an even lesser extent where notes and vote are focused.
We cannot fix everyone (sometimes you make a bet and lose)...
-
My Bitshares X t-shirt will be a collectors item one day !
Allah Akbar !
-
Right now there is market demand for $5 million PTS and $50 million BTSX.... if these were two companies that "merged" the new company would likely have a value greater than the sum of their parts... rarely would the combined value go down.
If you are referring to changing from "fixed supply" to dilution via delegates.... that is something that BTSX community will have to decide. If someone wants to start a clone with the original 2B limit... then they can. Follow the network effect is all I have to say.
Part of why I am not in favor of diluting for PTS/AGS stake is that I think PTS is overvalued at current rate. Maybe I'm naive for selling my PTS assuming there would be no "bail out" for its problems.
The merger metaphor is a bit broken as well. If we want to merge, shouldn't we merge with #1? I'd much prefer to give 1-10% new BTSX to BTC holders at a snapshot date.
Those BTC users are not bringing anything to the table... PTS/AGS is bringing the rest of my divided loyalties to the table and removing them from competition. What you are suggesting is like Apple giving MSFT free shares hoping that will prevent MSFT from competing with it. BTC is already competing with us, giving them our capital will not bring value to BTSX.
-
They wouldn't be getting into BTSX cheap.... given the same money buying PTS or BTSX will result in an equal stake at the end of the day (assuming efficient markets)... any PTS bump would be irrational.
Hmm, I guess you are right. Okay, so then what about not crediting DNS, VOTE, and NOTE? Is it that the shareholders of those DACs are similar enough to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders that we aren't worried about market fragmentation by keeping those DACs independent and acting as "competition".
DNS / VOTE had the same snapshot.
Not talking about honoring the 30% for FMV.
NOTE is independent and will be a competitor...
So we are only talking about:
1) users who bought DNS after the snapshot and new DNS issued
2) NOTES issued via their presale...
I think the primary issue people are concerned about is where my time and energy will be devoted... to a lesser extent where toast is focused... and to an even lesser extent where notes and vote are focused.
We cannot fix everyone (sometimes you make a bet and lose)...
We fix everyone, in 1 time or another.
The Clone Wars, have begun.
-
Order 66
-
My Bitshares X t-shirt will be a collectors item one day !
Allah Akbar !
+5%
-
Order 66
I think not!
-
Right now there is market demand for $5 million PTS and $50 million BTSX.... if these were two companies that "merged" the new company would likely have a value greater than the sum of their parts... rarely would the combined value go down.
If you are referring to changing from "fixed supply" to dilution via delegates.... that is something that BTSX community will have to decide. If someone wants to start a clone with the original 2B limit... then they can. Follow the network effect is all I have to say.
Part of why I am not in favor of diluting for PTS/AGS stake is that I think PTS is overvalued at current rate. Maybe I'm naive for selling my PTS assuming there would be no "bail out" for its problems.
The merger metaphor is a bit broken as well. If we want to merge, shouldn't we merge with #1? I'd much prefer to give 1-10% new BTSX to BTC holders at a snapshot date.
No one really cares about PTS's problems largely because it was never meant to be a currency. So everyone could deal with slow ass confirmation times. Why would there be a "bail out" ? There is potentially an incredible uptapped area once you start receiving massive adoption + power of prediction markets.
It isn't about a 'merger metaphor'. It is about taking care of previous obligations to maintain integrity going forward while being as adaptive as possible to find the optimal approach to maximize our chances of winning.
I want to say God is Great in every religion possible to cover our bases, but I'm drawing a blank real quickly.... and google doesn't help.
-
Right now there is market demand for $5 million PTS and $50 million BTSX.... if these were two companies that "merged" the new company would likely have a value greater than the sum of their parts... rarely would the combined value go down.
If you are referring to changing from "fixed supply" to dilution via delegates.... that is something that BTSX community will have to decide. If someone wants to start a clone with the original 2B limit... then they can. Follow the network effect is all I have to say.
Part of why I am not in favor of diluting for PTS/AGS stake is that I think PTS is overvalued at current rate. Maybe I'm naive for selling my PTS assuming there would be no "bail out" for its problems.
The merger metaphor is a bit broken as well. If we want to merge, shouldn't we merge with #1? I'd much prefer to give 1-10% new BTSX to BTC holders at a snapshot date.
No one really cares about PTS's problems largely because it was never meant to be a currency. So everyone could deal with slow ass confirmation times. Why would there be a "bail out" ? There is potentially an incredible uptapped area once you start receiving massive adoption + power of prediction markets.
It isn't about a 'merger metaphor'. It is about taking care of previous obligations to maintain integrity going forward while being as adaptive as possible to find the optimal approach to maximize our chances of winning.
I want to say God is Great in every religion possible to cover our bases, but I'm drawing a blank real quickly.... and google doesn't help.
+5%
I listen to gamey.
-
I am trying to consolidate down to one plate from many. Clean up the entire ecosystem... give people one option to get involved.. Buy BitShares. No more explaining allocations, no more snapshots, etc... just keep it simple.
+5% This is definitely what I wanted to see for sure. I see you as somewhat of a Steve Jobs type so once you start thinking about how to simplify everything (something Jobs was very good at), dominoes will start falling in the right way.
-
and new DNS issued
2) NOTES issued via their presale...
I think the primary issue people are concerned about is where my time and energy will be devoted... to a lesser extent where toast is focused... and to an even lesser extent where notes and vote are focused.
We cannot fix everyone (sometimes you make a bet and lose)...
For me personally:
- the bolded,
- switching, as a whole, to a new (and totally unclear ) project as the best great thing since sliced bread - especially keeping in mind that BTSX is the project of the century already;
- switching to a project with a way off (and I mean totally illogical) distribution, as the main one (or one of top 2) projects we focus on.
Were (hopefully as in the past) the top 3 concerns/disagreements I had yesterday. Those 3 were followed by close 4th, even with all the arguments for, with the idea that it is great every DAC to have its own exchange and similarly important bitUSD....
All 4 seemed addressed in the OP.
So, I , in general, strongly agree with this new proposal!
-
The biggest problem right now is the 28 Feb snapshot. As we get farther away from the date, it keeps looking worse (and is generating a lot of heartache amongst investors) and creating more pressure on Dan and co.
The logical order of releases would have been Test DPOS -> Real DPOS Coin -> BTS Me -> BTS X. I have a suggestion (will probably be hated by most) which might get around this.
For starters, PTS mining and AGS donation has to be stopped and all these along with the Feb 28th snapshot merged in a single coin of 4m supply (lets call it Tokens) and the social consensus would state that at least 20% of any DAC should honour these Tokens (instead of 10% each for PTS and AGS). Also, the Feb 28 snapshot will NOT be used for BTS X.
So, the distribution will be
1> Some 1.8m for PTS will become 1.8m Tokens
2> Roughly 1.1m AGS will become 1.1m Tokens
3> The remaining 1.1m can be distributed amongst Feb 28 snapshot and/or award Tokens directly to I3 which will be used only as payments/bounties (and can't be sold directly by I3).
The ratios can be adjusted accordingly to try and even out the playing field amongst the various types of investors. In this scheme, I think all the sets are being accommodated.
1> PTS holders will still get the same portion.
2> Ditto for AGS but as an added bonus they are liquid (BM is trying to get some form of BTS XT out quickly so that those AGSers can have some form of liquid asset).
3> PTS and AGSers before Feb 28th, who got in at a higher price due to the promise of BTS X will be partly compensated by getting awarded extra tokens. If you think that is not enough, that snapshot may also be used to award BTS Me, which is expected to be the first DAC with some features.
In doing so, initially BM releases a test version to try out DPOS. If it works well, the conversion into Tokens happen, which will mean it will be tested on a real coin listed on exchanges and having a good market cap. At this point, a mining pool which awards Tokens can also be set up. Remember, Tokens at this point will be the first DPOS coin, and with the rage about PoS these days, having a supposedly superior (we have to see how it works in practice), we should get a lot of buzz.
Then, BTS Me with some functionality (and maybe honouring Feb 28th snapshot) gets released, and after that every DAC honours Tokens directly - no more having families of DACs with with its own ProtoDACs to provide distribution and all. This simplifies matters to a large extent as you know how may of these Tokens you have and so what percentage you will get - no more trying to calculate separately for PTS, AGS or even BTS XT (for future BTS Xs). Of course, future DAC creators may award differently, like 20% for Tokens and, say, 10% for Bitshares Me, but that is his own choice.
Even if you guys think I am not bonkers, still there is room to adjust the numbers/ratios to even it out amongst the various investors. I just like the idea of having a simple, elegant system to award me the DACs (instead of the complicated mess we have now). The biggest benefit, IMO, is that the infamous Feb 28 snapshot monkey is off the back.
*goes back to smoking that weird plant thingy*
Quoting yours truly from back in April. Got laughed at; funny how things turn out, eh?
The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.
This concerns me as I've broken concrete with my bare hands. :)
You haven't seen the titanium rebar with 800ksi Nycon-PVA-RF-4000 High Performance Macro Fiber reinforcement we added to the mix:
(http://nycon.com.previewdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Improved_Flexural_Strength.jpg)
No, Stan, I haven't; it seems to be of a surprisingly poor quality.
-
Would it be reasonable to consider using the BTSX stake owned from the PTS owned donated during the AGS auction pre 2/28?
Those funds should be considered to be shares owned by the DAC itself. Those could be sent to the current PTS/AGS holders without causing dilution and without a hardfork to enable share-printing.
Does anybody know the numbers in this case? Would it be anywhere near a fair value for a buyout of PTS and AGS?
-
(http://www.venusbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/Happy-Kids.jpg)
-
great ,I like it
-
Would it be reasonable to consider using the BTSX stake owned from the PTS owned donated during the AGS auction pre 2/28?
Those funds should be considered to be shares owned by the DAC itself. Those could be sent to the current PTS/AGS holders without causing dilution and without a hardfork to enable share-printing.
Does anybody know the numbers in this case? Would it be anywhere near a fair value for a buyout of PTS and AGS?
So then you just cause extra problems with social consensus and in the end we end up inflating more to cover it ?
What is the point ? It is the value donated post February 28th that mainly needs to be addressed.
There is no way it could be near fair value let alone market value.
edit - Actually I suppose I am acknowledging the fact that I believe this will result in a net gain of aggregate value. I think with inflation the main problem will be one of trust. (which others have already stated..)
-
Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
YES! Lets do it!
Right now we have too many moving parts. Too much confusion for new people.
Too many different projects pulling everyone in all directions.
+5% +5%
Yes I especially like the idea of bringing BitShares under one banner and bootstrapping one main BitUSD to the world. (Before someone else does.) Let's do it! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fsujXw267XQ
-
Previously we had all those weird Bitshares X,Y,Z's planned out as competitors to Bitshares X. It was a headache and vague for even those of us who were familiar with the ecosystem. So that was all dropped.
So we are taking it to the next step and dropping the X and adding inflation of the money supply.
It will at least insure competitiveness but will also increase distrust.
This distrust will likely lead to an increased request for transparency...
-
Hello everyone, I'm a newbie here... though I have been into bitcoin for about 3 years... I am one of those 6-12 hours per day nut jobs, totally addicted to all this!
The past 4-5 days I have researched, discussed and thought about Bitshare alot! -- just when I thought I "got it" I stumble on this thread.
If I may give you an "outsider's" perspective:
a) if I'm not mistaken, when you talk about "dilution" you are talking about increasing the number of BTSX (rebranded to BTS), if yes, then i have to quote one of your forum sr. members who used the word "DECEITFUL" when describing Ripple for increasing their XRP units, and jumping forward in marketcap because they haven't yet released all the new ripples while the simple unit multiplier distorts the chart
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10095.msg131987#msg131987 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10095.msg131987#msg131987)
b) I finally got around to understanding, and liking, the initial idea and reasons behind PTS and later AGS... I was also liking the idea that these DAC's/coins would continue 'living' to provide an onramp to new DAC share distribution to people in the know. Kind of forming a symbiotic relationship between those who quickly distribute a bunch of new shares, and the PTS holders generally being an agreeable bunch would hold on to them to give new projects a chance to get going.
c) while starting to discuss many of my positive findings about Bitshares with friends, one strongly advised me to keep away because of "all the hard forks they have all the time"
d) I started buying BTSX even as the price dropped. Generally, I felt bad obviously after each purchase as I would see the price drop a little more (in the past 4-5 days)... but then I would get a boost after reading posts here, and especially after listening to the Oct 17 hangout! :) [I don't feel so positive now, and it is not because of price drops]
there may be a few more things i could list... but I want to keep it short, and PROPOSE some ideas for a. b. c. and d. [i don't expect a response/praise and definitely no attacks, since I understand that I may completely misunderstand everything you are discussing here, so here are my newbie proposals:
A) Please do not "seem" deceitful, keep BTSX as is, do not fork or raise the limit on the total number of BTSX, I do not know what the "market" will do, I for one would wait before investing any more, and would definitely become very skeptical of such major changes in the rules.
B) Keep PTS/AGS running, I don't see why they cause you much headache, they have a life of their own, a clear purpose/mission, you really don't have to do anything with them. I see a huge MARKETING benefit, and to make sure I know what I am trying to say, I even downloaded the PTS wallet to confirm, it is BEAUTIFUL! I love the familiar QT interface! And as DONKEYPONG said " one benefit of having PTS out on its own is that it theoretically reaches more people"... one of those people was ME :) it didn't reach my pocket, but it really got me thinking, and I may still buy some, especially if you do what I suggested in a more detailed post before:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg130847#msg130847 but this is not so important.
C) OK, all the "forks" that occur, I still don't understand. They are probably minor compared to what you are proposing here. If you change the total BTSX or completely abandon it and start BTS... that would really make me feel bad. I have told my friends (as I believe you have described Bitshares) BTSX is one DAC that is build on the IDEA of Bitshares, it is not a "property" of Bitshares. I like that, with this proposal you seem to want to changed that, and make Bitshares be one specific thing. I liked it as it was before quite a lot!
D) I will deal with my own feelings! :) I WISH YOU GOOD LUCK! Please get some rest, you seem overworked! :) I will keep following all your developments, you are obviously one of the "good guys" +5%
Cheers
-
+5% ;)
-
And of course...the price is tanking even harder now. :P
-
Yes I especially like the idea of bringing BitShares under one banner and bootstrapping one main BitUSD to the world. (Before someone else does.) Let's do it! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fsujXw267XQ
There was always going to be one main bitUSD. This doesn't mean that DACs won't utilize their own bitUSD to facilitate trading/remove volatility, it is just that the VOTE DAC won't be so cool. Cool functionality will likely go back to KeyID which can self-fund.
-
If this is going to be the plan, we should have some sort of press release explaining it to the world.
I think emphasis should be put on "merger" of btsx/ags/pts/etc in order to simplify things, rather than on "dilution".
-
Is the main problem is that BTSX suddenly needs money? We were told that as value increases money will always be there, and BTSX value has gone up 5-6x since launch. Maybe they shouldn't have used AGS money to
pump invest in BTSX in the first place.
Instead of all these inflating/merging/competing etc just try and increase the value of BTSX itself by improving it and, more importantly, marketing it. We have been hearing since January how awesome the marketing will be, and that we will be blown away by what is in store, and yet there is nothing.
Even a rudimentary Bitcointalk presence would've helped. Is Brian in charge of all this? I will contact a few people there and see if they can have any proposal on the cheap. It probably takes a couple of BTCs to put up ads there, you wouldn't even notice that bloody amount. If you had done it better there would've been a lot more AGS funds, just look at Ethereum.
Even now Note pre-sale is on and does anybody outside this bubble forum know that?
-
I agree with gamey and happybit.
As bytemaster has said in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10150.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10150.0) Only 26% out of 51% of votes have to disagree and this loses. As 75% of 51% voting need to agree to destroying bitshares PTS
-
Its a good idea，but i cant agree with the dilution of BTSX。it may causes bad result，change idea again and again，people will not believe in you anymore。
-
When the BTSX price is down to 2 cents tomorrow because "dilution" rumors, maybe you should use some more of the funds to support the price. :P
-
Its a good idea，but i cant agree with the dilution of BTSX。it may causes bad result，change idea again and again，people will not believe in you anymore。
Some faith will be lost, but will increased funding overcome that ?
That is the question.
It all depends on how the funding is spent. Nothing more IMO.
-
Is the main problem is that BTSX suddenly needs money? We were told that as value increases money will always be there, and BTSX value has gone up 5-6x since launch. Maybe they shouldn't have used AGS money to pump invest in BTSX in the first place.
THe problem is all the volatility. We were operating with BTC, now we are operating with BTSX. BTSX has been going down. What is the right move ? It isn't they suddenly need money, it is that the marketcap has slowly been decreasing along with everyone else. So...... you change plans before you go bust.
It isn't just Bitshares who has this problem. Look at Ethereum etc when BTC tanked.
This will all come to down to proper management if inflation is to succeed. It will also come down to faith in the management.
-
I like idea of AGS/PTS and agree that AGS and PTS shareholders was driven by different unique idea and we should keep them in the system with social consensus for new DACs.
What if, we will make final PTS snapshot combine it with AGS to BitShares Genesis asset and propose hard fork to make this asset liquid - let's shareholders decide it using new voting scheme proposed by bytemaster (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10150)?
This will violate any laws about AGS as securities if shareholders decide and I3 will vote as "Accept Majority"?
-
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here.
My Proposal:
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
I love your above two proposals. Change to POS and end PTS.
POS is such a great consensus which PPC has been running for more than two years. I am an AGS investor, I can't sell or transfer my AGS, while PTS investors sell PTS or transfer it anywhere and anytime, I feel a little unfair. I am so upset.
And 1 BitUSD for everything is a correct decision. As you know nubits project, 1 NBT = 1 USD always, this is enough for application.
-
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
POS is such a great consensus which PPC has been running for more than two years. I am an AGS investor, I can't sell or transfer my AGS, while PTS investors sell PTS or transfer it anywhere and anytime, I feel a little unfair. I am so upset.
Were you feeling upset when you got your AGS at a fraction of the PTS cost?
-
POS is such a great consensus which PPC has been running for more than two years. I am an AGS investor, I can't sell or transfer my AGS, while PTS investors sell PTS or transfer it anywhere and anytime, I feel a little unfair. I am so upset.
Were you feeling upset when you got your AGS at a fraction of the PTS cost?
Anyway, I like 3I put this publicly. I want POS and end PTS, but I do not care if this will happen or not.
-
I don't think it's a good idea >:( >:( >:(
-
I agree on this concept... bitshares will head up as buyouts happen and a new cycle starts as more people learn about it as it rises.... network affect ensues.
Today looks like NXT and BTSX price met... so maybe this event will help bts price rebound off of nxt to the moon.
-
Why not change to POW+POS?
With POW, you can get miners support.
With POS, you can get investors support.
With POW+POS, you can get both.
-
BTSX is falling down,falling down..
-
BTSX is now down 10% since this thread was created, with millions of shares dumped on btc38 and bter.
Apparently you dont even need to dilute to lose tons of market cap, all you have to do is post a thread proposing it.
-
我是中国人，英语不好，所以打中文吧。
其他不说，直说增发这一条，是加密货币的大忌，会对3I的公信力造成很恶劣的影响，而且如果增发，对现在只持有BTSX，没有AGS和PTS的人来说非常的不公平！！最近3I一直没什么实质动作，X的价格一直在阴跌，现在又说要增发，市场恐慌了，看看今天价格跌了多少
-
I agree on this concept... bitshares will head up as buyouts happen and a new cycle starts as more people learn about it as it rises.... network affect ensues.
Today looks like NXT and BTSX price met... so maybe this event will help bts price rebound off of nxt to the moon.
I only agree on this if btsx cap is still 2 billion and decreasing from burning... I think the PTS marketcap allocation should be paid for and not be allocated by increasing btsx supply... doing so I am whole heartedly disagreeing to.
Also will there be cases where btsx rises due to snapshot and then sold off again after snapshot similar to pts?
-
BTSX is falling down,falling down..
touching the 1 week moving average... prepare to buy
-
(http://i.imgur.com/axEWFWC.jpg)
Let the picture speak for itself.
-
一天一个想法，3I的诚信在哪里？规则就是规则，这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了！
-
I dont like the part with " unlimited dilution" :/
Stakeholder approved dilution... I say this because the "hard rules" will force us into "consensus busting problems" in the future.
I am working on ideas for better control over the voting process for "hard forks"....
Can you elaborate the relation between hard fork and dilution limits?
-
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
1) OK
2) OK, this was discussed and I think majority wants PTS on BTSX chain as user issued asset
3) ...
4) This is controversial. On one side dilution is beneficial. On the other side it breaks all the promises for max 2B BTSX. I'm neutral here = "accept majority".
5) I'm strongly against evaluating PTS at current prices and buying all of it with dilluted BTSX. There are majority of reasons against this:
0 Breaking all previous promises!
1 One might not want to sell at this prices. This essentially forces them to sell for BTSX at current prices.
2 This is unfair to PTS/AGS holders as they will not get the promised stake in future DACs.
3 Furthermore the original concept was UNDILLUTABLE 10% PTS, 10% AGS and 80% of the DAC distributed how developers see fit. These 80% used by developer might be extremely beneficial as development resource, marketing , operational funds. With the new scheme AGS and PTS both get dillutable 10%. And 80% distributed to BTSX stakeholders. And any development must be funded by dillutuion. Which is unfair to AGS/PTS.
7) OK
I agree that there should be unification of GENESIS assets. However I don't see the proposed solution as fair. What I propose for 6) is to just transfer AGS and PTS to a bitassets and keep the promises.
Another option would be to define dillutiable and non-dillutable BTSX. Where the non-dillutable are created from snapshotting PTS/AGS.
-
BTSX is now down 10% since this thread was created, with millions of shares dumped on btc38 and bter.
Apparently you dont even need to dilute to lose tons of market cap, all you have to do is post a thread proposing it.
You should not care about the short term price, long term price is a win.
-
一天一个想法，3I的诚信在哪里？规则就是规则，这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了！
I am happy to translate your words here:
Where is 3I's integrity, why change the rules so often? Rule is rule, current proposal is very different to previous one.
-
You should not care about the short term price, long term price is a win.
Sorry, but that is BS.
Also, if we go back down to 1 cent, it greatly hurts our long term, everyone will see BTSX as "that pump and dump that went up when they released bitUSD, and then went back down to where it started because it doesnt work"
-
You should not care about the short term price, long term price is a win.
Sorry, but that is BS.
Also, if we go back down to 1 cent, it greatly hurts our long term, everyone will see BTSX as "that pump and dump that went up when they released bitUSD, and then went back down to where it started because it doesnt work"
The people who would be saying that are generally not interested in BTSX to begin with. Plus I don't think all of our focus should be on what the crypto world is saying as they are not our main target market.
-
一天一个想法，3I的诚信在哪里？规则就是规则，这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了！
I am happy to translate your words here:
Where is 3I's integrity, why change the rules so often? Rule is rule, current proposal is very different to previous one.
+5%
Welcome to I3.This is their style.
-
Being heavily involved in Bitshares (genuine fanboy) - I have noticed that new people often refer to Bitshares X as "Bitshares" and then I will play stupid to see their level of attention. They rarely know better.
That leads me to believe that the cost of the confusion/noise created by Bitshares "X" and PTS/AGS is significant.
It truly is a mess and Bitshares X is a goofy name. Bitshares at least is simple and straight forward.
Remember mass adoption.
Lets hope when BTSX has an unnatural drop, bytemaster moves rest of AGS. IMO he should not sleep tonight. :)
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
...
-
You should not care about the short term price, long term price is a win.
Sorry, but that is BS.
Also, if we go back down to 1 cent, it greatly hurts our long term, everyone will see BTSX as "that pump and dump that went up when they released bitUSD, and then went back down to where it started because it doesnt work"
I am happy if BTSX go back to 1 cent, everybody can get on the train fairly. Actually, 1 cent should be equal to 500 cent.
At the beginning, the total amount of BTS should be 4 million, right now it is 2 billion. So rules are made by people. Let's talk more here.
I like the change this time.
-
I just want to say: Oh! My god lady gaga……
-
I think this panic dumping is going to be the bottom of the current BTSX downtrend.
(But I'm not sure how much this panic dumping is going to take us down before we hit that bottom).
I wish I had more to buy with right now, to try and catch the bottom of thisdump, but the sad thing is that I just bought a bunch earlier today. One day too early :(
-
Cann't agree with those proposal. Some other solution will be bter than these, in my opion. Something maybe could be learned from Ripple.Btsx can make a marketcap such as $2,000,000,000 or 20,000,000,000( wich or waht will be bter should be decided base on 3i work's value , future's potentien and so on). just 1% could be exchanged untilde it reach about 2~10X of 1% of the marketcap , then next step. when 100% btsx reach about or above $2,000,000,000, 100% btsxs could be exchange. and for improve it's satabilty, btsx could invovle some banks in, and so on. Btsxer could imaging all btter solutions.
-
@bytemaster,
To be clear, I want to know that changing BTSX from DPOS to POS is a part of your proposal or not?
-
@bytemaster,
To be clear, I want to know that changing BTSX from DPOS to POS is a part of your proposal or not?
No, he didnt say that. And it would be very dumb, because DPoS is bitshares' innovation over PoS.
-
@bytemaster,
To be clear, I want to know that changing BTSX from DPOS to POS is a part of your proposal or not?
Obviously not. Was this ever suggested ?
-
@bytemaster,
To be clear, I want to know that changing BTSX from DPOS to POS is a part of your proposal or not?
No, he didnt say that. And it would be very dumb, because DPoS is bitshares' innovation over PoS.
If this is true, I have no worry about that. Still need bytemaster's clarification.
But 101 delegates are centralized.
-
I think this panic dumping is going to be the bottom of the current BTSX downtrend.
(But I'm not sure how much this panic dumping is going to take us down before we hit that bottom).
I wish I had more to buy with right now, to try and catch the bottom of thisdump, but the sad thing is that I just bought a bunch earlier today. One day too early :(
I'm waiting for the fudsters sold me even cheaper.
;)
-
A great opportunity here to buy more cheaper btsx. On another note (to the dumpers) are you stupid? This IS an almighty experiment is it not? And not even probably a third way through yet! Big mistake selling now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think this panic dumping is going to be the bottom of the current BTSX downtrend.
(But I'm not sure how much this panic dumping is going to take us down before we hit that bottom).
I wish I had more to buy with right now, to try and catch the bottom of thisdump, but the sad thing is that I just bought a bunch earlier today. One day too early :(
I'm waiting for the fudsters sold me even cheaper.
;)
Unbelievable all this talk about FUD.
The only form of FUD spread is by byte master, with remarks like vote would have more potential to the moon than BTSX.
Really some funds should be spend on a PR manager, this could have gone down a whole lot easier.
Now there is mass panic, because there are a couple of proposals without any definitive outcome.
-
一天一个想法，3I的诚信在哪里？规则就是规则，这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了！
I am happy to translate your words here:
Where is 3I's integrity, why change the rules so often? Rule is rule, current proposal is very different to previous one.
I agree, too much impatience. If you change the fundamentals now then you tell all investors that you may do it again in the future. This can only result in a calapse of confidence. I would urge the core developers to stem this quickly with a reassuring statement and pray you haven't already let the cat out of the bag
-
here some of my opinions：
1：let ags/pts holders have a quantity of shares of all DACs is definitely a bad idea! It's more acceptable that AGS/PTS holders get the annual bonus of 3I company.
2: Btsx hard fork should be avoided as soon as possible. This idea is similar to financial QE! If it is unavoidable, the benefit of all original btsx shareholders should be well considered.
3: But in order to resolve the issues from ags/pts holders, we can do the btsx hard fork for only one time. Again, it must still consider the benefit of all original btsx shareholders. Maybe all three parts can share new shares in proportion. After that, ags/pts should disappear in 3I and only btsx shareholders still exist!
hope that these ideas help to remove equity issues in 3I! By the way, actually, I think that btsx shareholders should get a quantity of other DACs shares because other DACs take way of btsx techniques！
-
Just found this topic a minute ago and haven't had time to read all the pages yet, but here are my initial reactions, but I do reserve the right to be able to change my mind.
Do not use the forums as a means to find consensus, only use it to exchange arguments as a tool to formulate the final proposal.
Use or implement the voting mechanics on bitsharesX and use the network concensus mechanic to come to a consensus. Only people using the client and putting their money where their mouth is and actually use and support the network should have a say in votes like this for the bitsharesX part of the pie at least.
That way even if no consensus is reached, at least everybody with an opinion on this will actually use the network.
Is this a proposal made out of weakness, fear or feeling pressured by greedy people? If so then I suggest a weekend of separation from the internet and really think this through objectively and as rationally as possible. Decisions made in a panic or fearful state are rarely the right ones in the long run.
I am not in favor of a single monster of Frankenstein blockchain, that will do everything. To me that is the single biggest problem with bitcoin expanded by the fact that the user-owners of the network have no ability to vote. The opensource toolkit was the valuable concept to me, not the singular DACs that make use of it, bitsharesX included.
I'm not concerned about the technical limits of bandwidth or blockchainbloat, but I am concerned with the systemic/social problems that this imposes, and this is also why I am opposed to other single blockchain to rule them all solutions. Even on this forum it is clear that the bitsharesX crowd does not have the same interests as people interested in the other DACs, but in the proposed model they will be the ones with the majority vote on ALL decisions. That is a recipe for disaster. The separate DACs is the only way forward, because they need to live by their own rules and adapt not by the limitations and conflicting interests. Being small, light on your feet and flexible is only possible in smaller groups and at the very beginning. Once the network gets big and succesful, like all big companies they have become inflexible and in my eyes will collapse under their own weight or rot away from the inside, like for example is happening to Microsoft and Apple, both of whom I now see as past their prime and on their way down.
Also this completely passive attitude by socalled stake-holders and making themselves completely depended on bytemaster is a failure in creation of a self-sustaining decentralized network. To be honest bytemaster should be working to leave bitsharesx and let it live on its own, maybe set a target for that as well and let it's community and the concept prove itself on it's own. I'm starting to feel a more forceful approach is needed to get people to understand what decentralized actually means. A lot of the comments come across as if people were thinking they bought Invictus shares and that they own Apple-style-stocks and through that own all things that anyone from Invictus touches. If that's the case then I suggest renaming all shares to Midas-shares or Invect-shares, if that is the model going forward.
Sorry if I sound a bit irritated, I admit I find myself getting more and more irritated by the mindset that by just sitting at the computer and clicking with your mouse entitles you to anything. (And that also means I am frustrated with myself as well). Don't get me wrong, I also think the Invictus team carries a lot of responsibility for creating the current culture of passivity by the community.
Involving the community and getting more people involved is what is lacking, not the monopoly on Bytemaster and his time.
For now I've run out of time, I'll try to come back later today and read the other pages of comments and hopefully list the rest of my points.
-
So what happens to the idea that scalability requires having multiple blockchains running in parallels?
Is the "MasterDAC" BTS will have only one blockchain or will be composed of several blockchains?
(Overall I think the proposition in the OP is a good idea, I am just trying to understand).
-
一天一个想法，3I的诚信在哪里？规则就是规则，这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了！
I am happy to translate your words here:
Where is 3I's integrity, why change the rules so often? Rule is rule, current proposal is very different to previous one.
I agree, too much impatience. If you change the fundamentals now then you tell all investors that you may do it again in the future. This can only result in a calapse of confidence. I would urge the core developers to stem this quickly with a reassuring statement and pray you haven't already let the cat out of the bag
It's some kind of interesting that people are already panicking (tanking price) because of a proposal ..
In the end it's a shame to have investors on board that won't allow an open discussion of a proposal and respond wo BM's openness with sell pressure ..
Also, I have the impression that people in the timezones around BM, are alot more patient and open for discussion than the following timezones which react stupidly IMHO ..
The OP still is a PROPOSAL... and for this not around here for long should be made one thing clear: BM's proposals almost never get implemented as initially proposed ... this is all a hugh discussion
-
Rather just a proposal or real, the effect is the same. It would be a shame not to do it since it'd already being accounted for in loss value.
-
Rather just a proposal or real, the effect is the same. It would be a shame not to do it since it'd already being accounted for in loss value.
so then, the right thing for BM to do is NOT publicly discuss proposals and force changes upon us ..
you really like to see this happen? because I don't
-
I am not so sure how I should feel about that and I am confused about what I should do right now.
Please clarify what the proposal is so I can re evaluate my position:
1) BTSX and all future DACs (Play, ME etc) will migrate to an new BTS DAC? What does that mean specifically? There will be 1 bitusd for all and will continue have their fixed independent supply n0 of shares (Lotto shares, Me shares, BTSX etc...)? Why do we need 1 bitusd instead of doing ACCT? For simplicity?
2) DNS, Music and VOTE will be independent or will also migrate to BTS new DAC? If these are migrated into the new Bitshares DAC how the existing allocation of shares will be affected? I assume that no change will be made to their current supply, no dilution will be made and I get the same shares % on the DACs from my AGS but please confirm.
3) Do I understand correctly now that the new BTS DAC will award me BTSX based on my AGS and that BTSX supply of 2 bil will increase by 20% i.e to 2.4 bil? But I will not be able to use these BTSX for the next 6 months?
Basically I am very confused now...At first impression I am in favor for 1 DAC to rule them all. It's simple and stronger. Having 1 client for everything would be awesome! If I can have DNS,VOTE,MUSIC, PLAY by opening 1 application it will certainly help mass adoption.
I just want to make sure that by this proposal my AGS after 28th snapashot wasn't a bad decision. Because pre 28th snapshot and even after the 28th snapshot I was buying and holding for no reason expensive PTS...
P.S: I really don't mind this selling pressure. Keep them selling as you please but don't come back later complaining that BTSX skyrocketed and you couldn't buy cheap BTSX..
-
There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:
1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
4) We need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
6) We need to provide for long term funding and growth.
7) We need to resolve the consensus problem once and for all.
As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here. Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand. If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.
My Proposal:
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us. Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.
Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.
At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.
Once again... just proposals... everything will be thought out and community input is valued.
I think we should keep Bitshares X and PTS. Changes like these at the last minute only confuse people. It's already launched so it's too late to change in my opinion.
It's better to connect all DACs into a union using atomic cross chain capabilities.
I don't like this sort of centralization in this particular way. I think it's better to keep separate DACs and interconnect them. Think of DACs as separate corporations or states which are separate for a reason. Then connect them using atomic cross chain capabilities to allow DACs to communication with the network of DACs.
一天一个想法，3I的诚信在哪里？规则就是规则，这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了！
I am happy to translate your words here:
Where is 3I's integrity, why change the rules so often? Rule is rule, current proposal is very different to previous one.
I agree, too much impatience. If you change the fundamentals now then you tell all investors that you may do it again in the future. This can only result in a calapse of confidence. I would urge the core developers to stem this quickly with a reassuring statement and pray you haven't already let the cat out of the bag
It's some kind of interesting that people are already panicking (tanking price) because of a proposal ..
In the end it's a shame to have investors on board that won't allow an open discussion of a proposal and respond wo BM's openness with sell pressure ..
Also, I have the impression that people in the timezones around BM, are alot more patient and open for discussion than the following timezones which react stupidly IMHO ..
The OP still is a PROPOSAL... and for this not around here for long should be made one thing clear: BM's proposals almost never get implemented as initially proposed ... this is all a hugh discussion
These are the kind of changes you don't make after a launch. It's way too much change for the market to handle and it's not the kind of change anyone wants. The market is speaking.
In my opinion if you want unity then network the DACs using technical means. Don't change the names, don't change the internal structures or centralize it. Allow all DACs to pay a fee to join this network of DACs and use that network as a sort of support network for all the DACs.
-
I am in favor of the changes for the most part. We are never going to agree on a perfect solution. But simpler in my opinion is better and this simplifies a lot of things. People are worried about dilution. 10 percent of a dollar is better than 100 percent of a penny any day.
-
Make an AGS wallet and let people trade AGS freely. All issues will be resolved immediately.
-
Does anyone know how many downloads of an update there are every time there is an update to BTSX? I know it is not the number of individuals that matter, but the number of stakes that decide. Just curious how big the community is.
This whole thread reminds me of when NXT had the 50M NXT stolen from an exchange and it was "proposed" that everyone quickly within 72hours, I believe, download an update and REVERT the transaction, the forum was full of supporters of that idea (myself included) and in the end only about 3% of the nodes had the "update"... point is the vocal forum turned out to be NOTHING in the real world.
Is the Bitshares community more easily swayed then NXT?
btw, this thread is not about bitDNS and VOTE.. just letting you know that I still haven't found where these things are, and how I can buy them. (It is either my stupidity, or a failure of marketing...probably a bit of both)
-
We need to communicate clearly to shareholders the advantages of introducing dilution. Perhaps we should rename it to "delegated share issuance" so people will understand what its purpose is. The idea is that every new share issued will be used in a profitable way to generate a return higher than 1:1.
It seems to me the Chinese community is panicking right now. It needs to be communicated clearly to them as well.
-
BTER.COM/TRADE/DNS_BTC (http://BTER.COM/TRADE/DNS_BTC)
VOTE stakes are out there for pre-snapshot PTS holders. Not yet tradeable.
-
It seems to me the Chinese community is panicking right now. It needs to be communicated clearly to them as well.
*agreed* .. I seems they misinterpret the term "proposal" :(
-
I dont like the part with " unlimited dilution" :/
Stakeholder approved dilution... I say this because the "hard rules" will force us into "consensus busting problems" in the future.
I am working on ideas for better control over the voting process for "hard forks"....
Excellent!
This really does show how adaptive bitshares can be! Look at bitcoin unable to adapt. Still mining away, still diluting to pay for "security", etc.
Bitshares is able to change and adapt to the situation at hand. Doing what you mentioned above will greatly help Bitshares maintain a competitive edge.
"...let the strongest live and the weakest die"- Charles Darwin
You just have to be stronger than the weakest in a particular environment in order to survive.
:)
-
BTER.COM/TRADE/DNS_BTC (http://BTER.COM/TRADE/DNS_BTC)
VOTE stakes are out there for pre-snapshot PTS holders. Not yet tradeable.
Can you please explain this further. What is this?
I have some PTS, some AGS. Do I have to "retreive" my "VOTEs" like we did in BTSX? Is that already possible?
After I get these "VOTEs" does that mean I can trade them on the Bter link you gave?
-
I am not so sure how I should feel about that and I am confused about what I should do right now.
Please clarify what the proposal is so I can re evaluate my position:
1) BTSX and all future DACs (Play, ME etc) will migrate to an new BTS DAC? What does that mean specifically? There will be 1 bitusd for all and will continue have their fixed independent supply n0 of shares (Lotto shares, Me shares, BTSX etc...)? Why do we need 1 bitusd instead of doing ACCT? For simplicity?
2) DNS, Music and VOTE will be independent or will also migrate to BTS new DAC? If these are migrated into the new Bitshares DAC how the existing allocation of shares will be affected? I assume that no change will be made to their current supply, no dilution will be made and I get the same shares % on the DACs from my AGS but please confirm.
3) Do I understand correctly now that the new BTS DAC will award me BTSX based on my AGS and that BTSX supply of 2 bil will increase by 20% i.e to 2.4 bil? But I will not be able to use these BTSX for the next 6 months?
Basically I am very confused now...At first impression I am in favor for 1 DAC to rule them all. It's simple and stronger. Having 1 client for everything would be awesome! If I can have DNS,VOTE,MUSIC, PLAY by opening 1 application it will certainly help mass adoption.
I just want to make sure that by this proposal my AGS after 28th snapashot wasn't a bad decision. Because pre 28th snapshot and even after the 28th snapshot I was buying and holding for no reason expensive PTS...
P.S: I really don't mind this selling pressure. Keep them selling as you please but don't come back later complaining that BTSX skyrocketed and you couldn't buy cheap BTSX..
Bitshares Play would still live, but ME would be dead. (for now)
There will never be 1 bitUSD for all. Not feasible. Even with cross-chain trading 1 bitUSD will not be equivalent. They're pegged to the dollar, which is not the same as being equivalent.
Music/DNS have been launched and are indepedent. VOTE might still exist in some form, but will not have large direct support from I3. (?)
The proposal %s you suggest are correct ,but the integrated delay time to withdrawal is still largely up in the air. The main idea is to keep everyone from dumping into these low liquidity exchanges and tanking the price.
-
Either way, this is an INCREDIBLE proposal. One amazing DAC to invest in with the greatest features; no more confusion. BitShares just being BitShares. Dilution being up to the shareholders, and only being implemented if everyone agrees on it and it is likely to BUILD VALUE, as opposed to diluting value. Bytemaster is clearly a smart guy; do you really think he would introduce something as controversial as dilution if he didn't think the potential value it can bring was totally worth it??
I'm struggling to find how anyone can see this proposal as a negative?
I don't think I can +5% this proposal any harder... The time to buy is NOW. This is the DAC investors are looking for. Excellent, excellent ideas BM.
Think about this: the VOTE secret sauce for network effect.....will now go to BTS. If the secret sauce is as amazing as BM seems to think...coupled with the debit cards, marketing plan, etc...holy hell ...I need to rustle up some more fiat... :D
-
Yes consolidate but AGS
Let AGS serve as shares in future snapshots that carry a weighted balance greater than BTS . Develop the AGS as a liquid asset operating on the main chain. This way you still honour our little social contract and benefit all shareholders.
We have increased security, liquidity, value and trust.
AGS operating within the BTS client as an asset gives greater value to the economy.
Right now I know after each PTS snapshot to expect a relative price decline. If my AGS are an asset I have the opportunity to short the market and provide stability.
Lets put our money where our mouth is.
-
For me it's okay to change rules as long as favorable to investors, but the propose changes some are not.
1. Dilution
an investor's nightmare
2. End PTS/AGS one last snapshot 10%/10% dilution of BTSX
With the current PTS/AGS benefits I can earn shares to all new DACs. With the propose changes only one time for AGS and no benefits to PTS holders, it just exchanging PTS to BTSX, and the offer is ONLY 10% which is the current or even lowest price, I'll just sell my PTS to BTC and buy BTSX so no 6 months holding.
If there is one last snapshot at least compensates the benefits that are going to lose.
3. Focus only in one DAC bitshares
What's the advantage of it? we just created more competitors with the same technology.
If all BTS holders have investment in NXT, NXT will not be our competitor but will be a partner, same in DAC, we remove the snapshot then new DAC has its own investors that will compete to us.
(Pardon my english)
-
1. Dilution
an investor's nightmare
Want me to make a list of stocks that have ever issued new shares? You'll probably reconsider this blanket statement when you realize that basically every successful company that has ever existed has issued new shares in situations where shareholders and management has deemed it profitable.
-
I really like the idea of a snapshotable token (PTS) that allows any third party developer to create a DAC and leverage the BitShares community. That idea is solid and doesn't need to be done away with. It only needs to be simplified: either combine AGS/PTS into one liquid asset on the BitShares exchange or use BTSX (BTS?) as the snapshotable token itself. Want to use the BitShares toolkit and get gain the support and network effect the entire community offers? Snapshot BTS.
[/b]
+5% +5%. Agreed. Third party developers should Snapshot BTS (using a lower percentage rate of course)
-
If we are considering a consolidation...
Why are our communities not reaching out to discuss a merger? We have our differences but we are all trying to achieve the same goals. This has been my biggest concern in 2.0. Dilution.
If there was collaboration we would be well over 3b market cap by now and the world would know about it.
Right now theres far too much static and new investors are rushed by an abundance of choice. Personally I dont think all projects will make it. A united front most definitely.
-
According to the current market value of the PTS, giving BTSX to the PTS holder and AGS holders deprived the majority of the interests of investors. Everyone is very clear, at present the market value of PTS is the lowest in the history, $5000000 corresponds to 2000000 PTS,it means the price of a PTS is $2.5 , now PTS market is a $3.
Step back and say, even if 3i follow a $5000000 valuation of PTS, it is not reasonable using the same price with the valuation of AGS. AGS holders give much more money than PTS holders.
If doing so, 3I will completely lose credibility, lost everyone's confidence!
-
1. Dilution
an investor's nightmare
Want me to make a list of stocks that have ever issued new shares? You'll probably reconsider this blanket statement when you realize that basically every successful company that has ever existed has issue new shares in situations where shareholders and management has deemed it profitable.
Of course others become profitable also others failed, I'm talking about if there is a news about share dilution investors know that the value of their shares may take a cut.
-
How are new DACs shares distributed after the consolidation? Based on BTS? Or on the last snapshot?
-
Seriously now...We need to have some FINAL rules of what we will do...
I am a long term supporter in here who never got any profit yet by day trading. Instead, since I am a long time supporter I am trying to adjust in order to increase my long term position...
Bought expensive PTS. Turns out I should had AGS.
Kept buying PTS after 28th snapshot until I realised that since I don't care about short term liquidity much I should buy AGS.
Donated to AGS later on, turns out that now AGS will not be awarded in future DACs and will get diluted?
Kept buying BTSX from the $20 mil market cap up to the $70-$80 mil market cap by giving away any bitcoins or altcoins I had left, without claiming yet any of my PTS - AGS snapshot shares.
Now BTSX seems to be again where it shouldn't...At market cap of $45 mil. I don't know if I should sell DNS to buy more cheap BTSX or BTSX will crash so I should just keep my DNS..
Seriously...There is no way I can evaluate my position...I feel I am where I was exactly 1 year ago...
I am a very small fish in here, not a very important shareholder but that doesn't mean that my expectations are not enormous for the next years to come. And now I just don't know what to do...
Why people are dumping BTSX since now the proposal is to unite all DACs under 1 umbrella of Bitshares? What am I missing that others don't..
Please finalise the rules!
-
mf-tzo
I'm in the exact same boat. Have more PTS than AGS and now it looks like it won't count for anything.
-
The only way to know if the propose changes is good is to check the BTSX market price.
If it's going up, that is YES
So far the 'NO' vote wins.
-
I like the sound of this but there's some things I'm not clear on.
My understanding:
This is about I3's focus. I3 launches dacs. All I3 dacs use the same core business model of Bitshares of issuing shares and promoting a stable bitasset which is created though collateralized shorting. Even though dacs may be in completely different industries (voting, banking), because they all work by promoting a bitasset(s) they end up being in competition, when really it's better that they work together on bitasset promotion, and compete with their real competitors which are other companies in their industry, e.g BTSX is competing with banks, VOTE is competing with other voting systems, not each other.
What I don't understand:
- Is the VOTE dac an independent dac (like peertracks) or does this merger give BTSX holders a stake in it? Or does VOTE cease to exist as a dac and its features just become something Bitshares can do?
- Does this mean there will be 1 Bitshares blockchain? All bitassets will be collateralized by the same shares, no competing chains apart from with independent dacs?
- Will I3 release new dacs? Or because their work will now be on the same blockchain, these new dacs are actually just new features?
- Should there be a contract written up between i3 and the Bitshares blockchain so ensure they can't launch any competing chains with competing bitassets? (maybe a stupid idea I don't know).
- In the future, will stakeholders vote on which features they want I3 to work on?
If my understanding is wrong please correct me.
-
Bytemaster cannot serve two masters (pre. and post Feb 28 snapshot AGS). He cannot betray post snapshot donors by spending all of his time on BTSX. But BTSX obviously needs his full attention.... what to do?
We now find ourselves with a dilemma, seeded in the infamous “original mistake” which accidentally solidified the core distribution of his most brilliant idea 4 months too early, and only ¼ way through the main funding drive. Fortunately, we now have an crisis/opportunity to 'course correct' this inauspicious division once and for all. Let us remain vigilant and cool headed as we chart the most sane course, perhaps even putting to the test some of the trust we have gained from one another.
There seems to be two “hot button” issues at this time. The first has apparently found general consensus that PTS and AGS should be combined and made liquid, albeit how and when are still up for debate. The second, and by far the most volatile, seems to revolve around the idea that dilution of BTSX is 'absolutely' needed at this time to fund further development. I am unaware that anyone close to the dev. team has said this outright, or has given explanation as to why all of the development funds have already been spent, but my suspicion is that this rumor of 'absolute need' evolved from the original dilemma of bytemaster's desire to be fair with the AGS (only using Jan 1- Feb 28 for BTSX). If this assumption is true, then I postulate that pressure for dilution might be lessened temporarily by finding a way for bytemaster to justify spending the post Feb. 28th AGS funds on BTSX without dishonoring the social contract.
One option he proposed is to absorb PTS and AGS through a one time BTSX dilution of 20% (based on the theory of their current market caps of approx. $5mil., $5mil., and $50 mil.). BTSX could be re-branded simply “Bitshares”, and then officially recommended as the 'grand proto-DAC' for future social-contractual obligations. There is a fatal flaw in this idea as it stands, namely that it would betray the relative value proposition of AGS and PTS and heavily skew all future DAC allocations towards pre Feb. 28th snapshot holders. I will explain how this works in the next paragraph. If you already figured this out, skip to the following paragraph.
Assuming 2 million shares existed for each AGS and PTS, a minimum consensus allocation (10% each) 'guarantees' 1/ 20millionth allocation per share. If BTSX is diluted 20% to absorb AGS and PTS, they now have 1/6th the value proposition they once had, assuming BTSX is not diluted any further and manages to remain at the same price per share. So now when BTSX is snapshotted, the PTS or AGS holder will now receive 1/ 120millionth of the new DAC (per absorbed unit). Furthermore, this skews the relative allocation towards the original pre. Feb 28th snapshot holders. While there has been 10's of millions in trading volume since BTSX release, over 1/3 of the genesis shares are still unclaimed, so pre. Feb 28th AGS and PTS holders would be (unfairly) entitled to at least 1/3rd of the total proposed proto-dac.
It would be fine to re brand BTSX to just “bitshares”, but this blockchain should not totally replace AGS and PTS in the proposed manner. There is no reason, however, that post Feb. 28th AGS and PTS holders cannot still be brought into the fold with a one time 20% dilution. There might not even be huge opposition form the pre-Feb 28thers, because naturally the entire AGS list would be allocated shares in the dilution, and all pre- 28th would be allocated additional shares for the trouble of welcoming their brethren from across the divide. Most might even be sympathetic to the cause..... I most certainly am. If this solves the short to medium term of fund shortage, then we might be able to explore the dilution debate in an atmosphere of less urgency, which would surely improve our chances of making the right decision. And who knows, in this crazy market what a few months might bring (come on, marketing!)
-
Seriously now...We need to have some FINAL rules of what we will do...
I am a long term supporter in here who never got any profit yet by day trading. Instead, since I am a long time supporter I am trying to adjust in order to increase my long term position...
Bought expensive PTS. Turns out I should had AGS.
Kept buying PTS after 28th snapshot until I realised that since I don't care about short term liquidity much I should buy AGS.
Donated to AGS later on, turns out that now AGS will not be awarded in future DACs and will get diluted?
Kept buying BTSX from the $20 mil market cap up to the $70-$80 mil market cap by giving away any bitcoins or altcoins I had left, without claiming yet any of my PTS - AGS snapshot shares.
Now BTSX seems to be again where it shouldn't...At market cap of $45 mil. I don't know if I should sell DNS to buy more cheap BTSX or BTSX will crash so I should just keep my DNS..
Seriously...There is no way I can evaluate my position...I feel I am where I was exactly 1 year ago...
I am a very small fish in here, not a very important shareholder but that doesn't mean that my expectations are not enormous for the next years to come. And now I just don't know what to do...
Why people are dumping BTSX since now the proposal is to unite all DACs under 1 umbrella of Bitshares? What am I missing that others don't..
Please finalise the rules!
The dump we've seen now is most likely the "BTSX should be bitcoin" crowd dumping in reaction to the announcement of share dilution. As someone with a significat amount of BTSX who've lost quite a bit so far, I'll say that this is probably the bottom, unless there are inflation-scared investors left who simply havent seen the announcement yet, I think the rest of us understand that BTSX/BTS will be strengthened overall in the long term.
-
@ Protoman: You are in the oposite boat I think. I have AGS and no PTS anymore. I had expensive after the 28th snapshot @ $15 - $20 dollars each which I finally after a long time I donated to AGS once their price dropped to $3 - $5 I think...
In no way this is a complain. Everything was well communicated back then. I just didn't understand the implications of those communications and I made some bad investment decisions where I could have been in a way much better position now if I have understood everything more clear. So the fault is on me and in no way under BM or anyone else...
As the situation is now, my first reaction is that I shouldn't think very long term. The minute an asset doubles just dump it. And whenever a correction happens just buy back. I could have been in a better position doing just that. Instead I choose to keep buying whenever I can at no matter price
My overall thinking is that I really don't care what happens short term. I am and will be a long term supporter. I just need to have a clear understanding of what needs to be done in order to maximize long term goals. I am here for the x100 of my small investment not for x2 or x5..
-
The dump we've seen now is most likely the "BTSX should be bitcoin" crowd dumping in reaction to the announcement of share dilution. As someone with a significat amount of BTSX who've lost quite a bit so far, I'll say that this is probably the bottom, unless there are inflation-scared investors left who simply havent seen the announcement yet, I think the rest of us understand that BTSX/BTS will be strengthened overall in the long term.
I agree .. also count in that some/many chineses investors might have interpreted the OP as ANNOUCEMENT which it is NOT (as you also falsely state) ..
It's a "read-for-comment", "proposal", "open-for-discussion" .. or maybe even "hey investors, we need you advice" .. kind of post!
nothing was decided ... and BM will for sure not decide such changes on it's own ..
that's what I learned reading this forum on a regular basis for almost a year now!
-
I'm not generaly against this but I see an issue concerning the funding. The concept of self funding DACs through dilution somehow breaks. Because not every DAC (or in this case application in one DAC) is spending their own money but rather compete on some funding payed by the whole collective. E.g. if only few stake holders have interest in a voting application it is going to be virtually impossible for them to get funded. This would basically eliminate every smaller application integrated in this DAC which probably leads to stand-alone DACs for those applications anyways.
-
The dump we've seen now is most likely the "BTSX should be bitcoin" crowd dumping in reaction to the announcement of share dilution. As someone with a significat amount of BTSX who've lost quite a bit so far, I'll say that this is probably the bottom, unless there are inflation-scared investors left who simply havent seen the announcement yet, I think the rest of us understand that BTSX/BTS will be strengthened overall in the long term.
I agree .. also count in that some/many chineses investors might have interpreted the OP as ANNOUCEMENT which it is NOT (as you also falsely state) ..
It's a "read-for-comment", "proposal", "open-for-discussion" .. or maybe even "hey investors, we need you advice" .. kind of post!
nothing was decided ... and BM will for sure not decide such changes on it's own ..
that's what I learned reading this forum on a regular basis for almost a year now!
When it comes to a subject as volatile as share dilution, a public discussion by core developers is basically the same as an official announcement. The people who fully oppose dilution have already divested the moment they realized developers and stakeholders were even considering it as a realistic option, and you can be almost certain that of the remaining holders there is now a clear majority for dilution.
-
I'm not generaly against this but I see an issue concerning the funding. The concept of self funding DACs through dilution somehow breaks. Because not every DAC (or in this case application in one DAC) is spending their own money but rather compete on some funding payed by the whole collective. E.g. if only view stake holders have interest in a voting application it is going to be virtually impossible for them to get funded. This would basically eliminate every smaller application integrated in this DAC which probably leads to stand-alone DACs for those applications anyways.
The solution is to rather than have new features start out on the superDAC, they can be seeded on their own blockchain, bootstrap a network of active users and fix/improve/perfect their unique DAC feature. Once their business model has been proven to be profitable, the main DAC can acquire the tech, userbase and off chain infrastructure through a one time market-cap-for-market-cap snapshot.
-
As the situation is now, my first reaction is that I shouldn't think very long term. The minute an asset doubles just dump it. And whenever a correction happens just buy back. I could have been in a better position doing just that. Instead I choose to keep buying whenever I can at no matter price
It's not that simple. Likely you would have lost even more. ???
-
Why people are dumping BTSX since now the proposal is to unite all DACs under 1 umbrella of Bitshares?
Exactly. This puts a TON of potential into the main BTS DAC, where everything is united and all innovation will be. Why would anyone sell this good news?? My guess it's just panic at a time when the BTSX price has fallen gradually for the past week or two. People have no idea where the bottom is, and I'm sure there are quite a few whale investors who probably don't even read the forums, instead just following the market trend...
As soon as the potential of this proposal is realized, I expect a huge, huge reversal. Be prepared.
-
I'm not generaly against this but I see an issue concerning the funding. The concept of self funding DACs through dilution somehow breaks. Because not every DAC (or in this case application in one DAC) is spending their own money but rather compete on some funding payed by the whole collective. E.g. if only few stake holders have interest in a voting application it is going to be virtually impossible for them to get funded. This would basically eliminate every smaller application integrated in this DAC which probably leads to stand-alone DACs for those applications anyways.
The solution is to rather than have new features start out on the superDAC, they can be seeded on their own blockchain, bootstrap a network of active users and fix/improve/perfect their unique DAC feature. Once their business model has been proven to be profitable, the main DAC can acquire the tech, userbase and off chain infrastructure through a one time market-cap-for-market-cap snapshot.
Makes sense, then again this complicates everything opposed to making the ecosystem simpler.
IMO it might be better to leave the DACs separate, implement ACCT and integrate everything into one client. This also doesn't take the opportunity from investors to decide in which application/DAC to invest.
-
I've made some suggestions related to this thread in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0) .
I think my suggestion might solve some issues and is "fair" (whatever this means).
-
No matter what the decision is I want to know if I should claim now my BTSX from the 28th snapshot.
I would assume no but you never know...
I assume that no matter what decision is made I will be able to claim the same amount of shares that are already awarded to me from the 28th snapshot and any other number of shares awarded from DNS and VOTE AND MUSIC. So we are only talking about increasing BTSX supply and consequently my % percentage on the BTS super DAC. Correct?
And if there is a snapshot on this Super DAC from BTSX ownership the amounts claimed will take into account those unclaimed BTSX. Correct?
-
>
My Proposal:
...
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
"Without limit"? - seems like this would lead to devaluation down the line. Did you mean a 20% dilution only to accommodate AGS and PTS?
-
These are the kind of changes you don't make after a launch. It's way too much change for the market to handle and it's not the kind of change anyone wants. The market is speaking.
In my opinion if you want unity then network the DACs using technical means. Don't change the names, don't change the internal structures or centralize it. Allow all DACs to pay a fee to join this network of DACs and use that network as a sort of support network for all the DACs.
It is a company.
It is competing in a ruthless Darwinian evolutionary environment.
It must continuously adapt or die.
Arguments against change are arguments against adapting.
The dinosaurs already tried that.
:)
-
>
My Proposal:
...
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
"Without limit"? - seems like this would lead to devaluation down the line. Did you mean a 20% dilution only to accommodate AGS and PTS?
any decision to up the total supply cap need to pass a vote by stakeholders. so worry not, stakeholders *will* (hopefully and rationally) decide what's best for all.
-
It seems to me the Chinese community is panicking right now. It needs to be communicated clearly to them as well.
*agreed* .. I seems they misinterpret the term "proposal" :(
BTSX is good and global, why worry about Chinese behavior? The community do not want to see a platform only Chinese support.
-
What sais/thinks toast about the proposal?
How is he imagine the future for KeyID now?
I am very interested to hear a DAC "owner" thoughts...
What think's COB about the proposal?....
-
BTSX is good and global, why worry about Chinese behavior? The community do not want to see a platform only Chinese support.
[/quote]
Exactly! +5%!
-
I am in favor of the changes for the most part. We are never going to agree on a perfect solution. But simpler in my opinion is better and this simplifies a lot of things. People are worried about dilution. 10 percent of a dollar is better than 100 percent of a penny any day.
+5%
-
BTSX is good and global, why worry about Chinese behavior? The community do not want to see a platform only Chinese support.
And on the other hand .. people only "care" about the bitUSD!?
Are you _really_ open minded?!
I personally would neither say I do not care about the chineses .. nor would I say I care about them ...
replace "chinese" in the above at will: possible options: any country!
-
BTSX is good and global, why worry about Chinese behavior? The community do not want to see a platform only Chinese support.
Exactly! +5%!
The Chinese community is very important to BitShares. They are probably the biggest market for BitShares atm & China is a huge market in general. Their input and opinions are very important.
-
I think a large problem we currently have is that most users do not really know about the entire bitshares platform. Bitcoin sees us (rightfully) as an enemy imho...and there is not much of a presence outside bitshares that is reaching out to teach people.
Bitshares is not THAT complicated and I believe the biggest problem we are facing is that we are bumping up against a glass ceiling that exists largely because very few have reached out to create the numerous videos and forms of media that would get us into the public eye. That should be #1 because it serves two purposes simultaneously:
1) increases value (through an increased network effect)
2) increases public awareness
Since I do not see this coming from marketing (srry I have to say it), I recommend invictus create their own delegates (to reach the maximum 101) that pay out to people who refer others to the ecosystem. Add them to a slate and have that slate advertised in each Invictus worker's signature. If people are upset about invictus "centralizing" delegates power under their control---too bad, they should then offer something better (or similar).
Invictus could even promise that any delegate that wants to substitute themselves for the Invictus delegates to pay for this referral program will be automatically used as a replacement for one of the "placeholder" delegates Invictus' is running.
Don't change anything because then you risk losing your most loyal base. Once you do that....good luck getting network effect.
-
What BM said likes a rob to AGSer and PTSer.I like btsx just as other DACs and I do not want to lose the opptuinity to get all other DACs.
-
1. Dilution
an investor's nightmare
Want me to make a list of stocks that have ever issued new shares? You'll probably reconsider this blanket statement when you realize that basically every successful company that has ever existed has issue new shares in situations where shareholders and management has deemed it profitable.
Of course others become profitable also others failed, I'm talking about if there is a news about share dilution investors know that the value of their shares may take a cut.
Most companies in high growth industries (specially startups) fund their operation through share issuance (dilution). Dilution is a means of investing in the companies growth. As long as the market believes in the growth plan (management), the indicators from the long-term/med-term investors should be positive. Of course in the very short term, the market hates uncertainty, so that is the reaction you are seeing now. All things being equal, and if managements plan is tight (I think it is) we should see a share price drop followed in time by a rebound to higher highs.
-
What BM said likes a rob to AGSer and PTSer.I like btsx just as other DACs and I do not want to lose the opptuinity to get all other DACs.
Same sentiment here +5%
-
Yes I especially like the idea of bringing BitShares under one banner and bootstrapping one main BitUSD to the world. (Before someone else does.) Let's do it! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fsujXw267XQ
There was always going to be one main bitUSD. This doesn't mean that DACs won't utilize their own bitUSD to facilitate trading/remove volatility, it is just that the VOTE DAC won't be so cool. Cool functionality will likely go back to KeyID which can self-fund.
VOTE DAC BitUSD could have potentially competed for BitUSD network effect.
Though don't get me wrong even though I support this proposal, I'm actually mainly in the 'no dilution' camp. I will also invest in a credible hard capped competitor when I see one, because I believe what a constitution enshrined hard cap loses out on in adaptability, it gains in the confidence it provides to many investors, supporters and customers in the crypto-currency space.
BitShares core though can not be all things to all people and the last thing it needs is to compete with itself & divide attention in this area. This issue has already been heavily divisive for nearly a month and I would say the key developers are pretty clear that BitShares needs dilution. So even though there will be fallout. I believe as far as BitShares goes, it should consolidate again as much as and as soon as possible under one simple brand, one clear vision and move forward and this proposal does that.
We will not have the luxury of being alone at the party arguing among ourselves much longer.
-
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?
-
we konw BTSX is a very very grand project. BM is one of most smart man I have konw. but grand project need money for continual devoloping. I don`t konw if it is a problem now, but is there a long plan to resolve this problem , should I suggeste as follow:
1.BTSX can inflate 10% per year (first year 10%, 5% or small after this, 1% will become a huge money if BTSX develop well), compare with BTC ,it is small. but the differrent is that this BTSXs are not consumeed by POW, this BTSXs are belong to delveloping fundation. it will been used for BTSX developing and push btsx out of solar system ':P :P :P. I suggest it is controled by BM,because he is the father of BTS. and other hand a predictable inflation can give invester a big confidence without a unpredictable dilution.
2.BM and delvelop team list plan of BTSX developing and how much money them need per quarter . list each expenses of fund as AGS.
and develop team also can select burn btsx out of developing using if needed .
-
What BM said likes a rob to AGSer and PTSer.I like btsx just as other DACs and I do not want to lose the opptuinity to get all other DACs.
I think what everyone has missed is that with this proposal there would be "no other DACs" because all funds will be going towards one BitShares DAC that then provides features all of the others would have had.
VOTE would direct all network effect and marketing toward BTS
DNS would either focus on a different TLD or get integrated into BTS
Everything Ethereum can do will get integrated into BTS
So given our focus on building everything into BTS until such a time that someone wants to clone BTS and focus on a smaller demographic and "specialize"...
Those that use the "stock is falling proves the idea is bad" argument.... are no different than miners saying "BTC is rising dilution for mining is good".
Those that claim that "dilution will kill BTSX" are some of the same people who say that "VOTE" will kill BTSX because it has BitAssets + Dilution.
So the real problem is that people are "scared" from "uncertainty"... there are many kinds of uncertainty:
1) will dilution make my shares worthless......
2) will a competitor who is able to dilute make my shares worthless....
3) will bytemaster have to support two projects.... and end up hating one and loving the other... which will be which?
4) will other DACs having BitUSD hurt the main BitUSD?
You see... it doesn't matter what we do, say, or propose... in the short term uncertainty is what will hurt the price. Once there is some certainty that is clear and easy to understand then the market can accurately price things:
Imagine the opportunities for press releases:
1) First ever crypto-equity merger
2) BTSX DACS unite and announce intention to offer Ethereum competitor
Now imagine how much easier future pitches are.... "buy BTS"... rather than "Buy BTSX... but you may want to put some of your money in PTS that may yield something if core developers divide their focus on your first BTSX investment".
Change isn't always easy, pretty, or pleasant.
Those who are dumping are likely speculating that it will fall further on the rumor... then they can buy back in cheaper once everything is sorted out and they know what they are getting.
I leave everyone with one final thought:
If you are investing in BTSX technology because of BitAssets and what that enables.... the value is in the BitAssets which appear to be working... then this proposal is really about preventing the dilution of BitAssets on 20 different DACs leading to user confusion.
If you want a no dilution system with BitAssets... fine that *can exist* if you can find a dev team that will work for transaction fees and market the hell out of it. You can even fund that team with a 1 allocation on the launch of the DAC if you want. I suspect someone may launch such a competitor and more power to them.
Reducing the number of DACs will reduce common costs and incurred by all DACs... one large DEV team working on quality control and bug fixes rather than many small teams dealing with constantly merging upstream changes. The cost savings to our ecosystem will be huge and thus we all benefit.
-
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?
This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
-
What sais/thinks toast about the proposal?
How is he imagine the future for KeyID now?
I am very interested to hear a DAC "owner" thoughts...
What think's COB about the proposal?....
yes
we need to know the thoughts from the other dac teams ,because the BTS ecosystem is a big family.
-
+5% bytemaster
-
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?
This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
So BTS will have only one blockchain?
Weren't you saying few months ago that scalability requires having several parallel blockchains?
-
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?
This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
Awesome. +5% (so long as it's still scalable)
-
Focus our effort on dominating one area first, then once we are doing well, spread out to the others.
Like google first dominated search, built a revenue base, and then branched out.
Exactly... but I cannot do this if there are people waiting for a return on their PTS / AGS.... thus the need to change things for everyones benefit.
I generally agree with BM's proposal. The critical detail here is how will dilution be determined, controlled (voting?), and its value measured.
-
A couple of things:
I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.
What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?
Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.
I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer.
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
-
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?
This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
So BTS will have only one blockchain?
Weren't you saying few months ago that scalability requires having several parallel blockchains?
I suspect the plan would be to do a spinoff whenever the transaction fees got too high for a particular application due to high volume on the single chain. The issue is that while splitting may be necessary for scaling, as long as the scale is small enough that it's unnecessary unity is better for exponential network effect.
-
What BM said likes a rob to AGSer and PTSer.I like btsx just as other DACs and I do not want to lose the opptuinity to get all other DACs.
I think what everyone has missed is that with this proposal there would be "no other DACs" because all funds will be going towards one BitShares DAC that then provides features all of the others would have had.
VOTE would direct all network effect and marketing toward BTS
DNS would either focus on a different TLD or get integrated into BTS
Everything Ethereum can do will get integrated into BTS
So given our focus on building everything into BTS until such a time that someone wants to clone BTS and focus on a smaller demographic and "specialize"...
How cool is that +5% +5% +5%
Those that claim that "dilution will kill BTSX" are some of the same people who say that "VOTE" will kill BTSX because it has BitAssets + Dilution.
I've been one of them. I can see a market for & will probably be an in investor in both, though BitShares can only be associated with one imo. I definitely think BitShares should do the dilution especially as it gets all that above.
(Dilution will harm BTSX because there's a market for & it was started with a hard cap. I also believe it could have bootstrapped in the next three months with full focus as it was first to the party but not if it has to compete against Vote and in other areas within BitShares. (Which is why Vote + dilution harms BTSX) However the proposal for 1 BitShares is much stronger in general anyway. I think it looks great.)
-
I agree with the OP, from a company standpoint
-
There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:
1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
4) We need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
6) We need to provide for long term funding and growth.
7) We need to resolve the consensus problem once and for all.
As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here. Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand. If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.
My Proposal:
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us. Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.
Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.
At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.
Once again... just proposals... everything will be thought out and community input is valued.
+5% - Do it! You have to adapt. Current situation is very confusing, complicated and limited resources are spread to thin. I see this as very positive long-term with possibilities of short-term down-turn (buy opportunities).
-
Hm ... I am not so sure I like the 'all-in-one blockchain' aspect here ..
I really was in favor for a multi-chain ecosystem
how would you include PLAY and DNS and further DAC-ideas into the one blockchain without having a constant need for hard-forks?
-
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
I too wonder about this.
Also, what's the problem with PTS? Is it it's not being profitable to mine? So what? Maybe I'm not seeing the point or I'm misunderstanding future consequences of this, but don't fix what doesn't need to be fixed. It's not profitable? Leave it as it is. You cannot try to perpetuate things. You can't try to revive things everytime they are about to die. Maybe it's just meant to be that way. If it isn't profitable, miners will have to dump them at higher prices. If people don't want to pay a higher price, they won't have a cut on future DACs, simple as that.. and I'm sure there will always be people willing to pay the right price to ensure they have their cut on a future DAC.
As for the rest, money is the problem right? It might not be so simple but have you tried out things like Kickstarter? We really should organize ourselves and have a list of all possible solutions. At the moment I only see dilution. At the moment the only reason why that doesn't please me is because of an outsider's point of view. People jump to conclusion, if they see something like that, they will immediately think of bitshares as a pump and dump. While I tend not to care about such opinions, I don't know how bad the consequences of this might be. That's what worries me.
-
Hm ... I am not so sure I like the 'all-in-one blockchain' aspect here ..
I really was in favor for a multi-chain ecosystem
how would you include PLAY and DNS and further DAC-ideas into the one blockchain without having a constant need for hard-forks?
Yeah me too. But in practice for network effect I really see you need to get as many people as possible into one thing. It also simplifies BitShares a lot.
If there are use cases that are more competitive as individual DACs then it will be so anyway.
-
+5%GO!
-
I have a feeling their is more going on behind the scenes. Maybe money is getting tight, maybe no marketing push or talks have fallen through with on-off ramps.
I am just not seeing the logic of the great need to change so many things at once.
-
I have a feeling their is more going on behind the scenes. Maybe money is getting tight, maybe no marketing push or talks have fallen through with on-off ramps.
I am just not seeing the logic of the great need to change so many things at once.
It's like that scene in the Godfather when Michael settled all family business:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfbYp9oaIT8
except without whacking anybody (fingers crossed!)
-
I have a feeling their is more going on behind the scenes. Maybe money is getting tight, maybe no marketing push or talks have fallen through with on-off ramps.
I am just not seeing the logic of the great need to change so many things at once.
I think it's the logical conclusion once you realize that BTS VOTE would be better with BitUSD, but BSTX would be worse off.
Once you realize that, you have a choice to make:
- favor BTSX
- favor VOTE
- aligns the interests between VOTE and BTSX (and have synergies with a bigger network effect and the streamlining of the marketing)
-
BTER.COM/TRADE/DNS_BTC (http://BTER.COM/TRADE/DNS_BTC)
VOTE stakes are out there for pre-snapshot PTS holders. Not yet tradeable.
Can you please explain this further. What is this?
I have some PTS, some AGS. Do I have to "retreive" my "VOTEs" like we did in BTSX? Is that already possible?
After I get these "VOTEs" does that mean I can trade them on the Bter link you gave?
not sure about AGS, apologies... Yes I believe you would "retrieve" your VOTEs like it was with BTSX and DNS earlier and those were supposed to become tradeable on exchanges like Bter. Now however the whole thing seems to get redesigned. Unless I am really on top of what's going on (which I am not due to my tech and time limitations), just trying to follow things which I can understand, and sofar happy to wait with any investment / reallocation / trading decisions. My intuition tells me that its difficult to optimise now with my limited understanding of the process, and that holding some BTSX and some PTS gives one a decent chance of being with the leading boat when the sky clears ;)
-
I have a feeling their is more going on behind the scenes. Maybe money is getting tight, maybe no marketing push or talks have fallen through with on-off ramps.
I am just not seeing the logic of the great need to change so many things at once.
Nothing going on behind the scenes... we have been very transparent. I am just looking 1 year ahead... our finances are perfectly fine at the moment. I am being transparent about the fact that our resources are currently divided into "Pre/Post Feb 28th"....
I also want to DECENTRALIZE development and financing to future proof the chains. I want to avoid dividing my attention and clean up all loose ends.
-
I have a feeling their is more going on behind the scenes. Maybe money is getting tight, maybe no marketing push or talks have fallen through with on-off ramps.
I am just not seeing the logic of the great need to change so many things at once.
Nothing going on behind the scenes... we have been very transparent. I am just looking 1 year ahead... our finances are perfectly fine at the moment. I am being transparent about the fact that our resources are currently divided into "Pre/Post Feb 28th"....
I also want to DECENTRALIZE development and financing to future proof the chains. I want to avoid dividing my attention and clean up all loose ends.
Reading this thread a few hours after I originally responded, I am very glad to see how much support this proposal has gotten. Not everyone is pleased and there are valid concerns. But the strong support for BM's proposal is much more widespread than I would have guessed. This bodes very well for the new BitShares.
-
个人觉得如果比特股只有一个X，集成了太多功能，也许会很臃肿和杂乱，同时增加了系统的风险性，也更容易被山寨。
能否让基于I3的DACS各自独立，但是跑在同一个块链上，使用共同的101个代表，从而使USD可以在不同的DAC间流动？
发行USD的权力只限于BITSX，这样USD就只有一种，保持了BTSX的核心竞争力，如果某个DAC成功，对USD的需求就会增多，提升了BTSX的价值，多赢的局面，而某个DAC不成功也不会对整个生态圈造成什么影响。这样所有基于TOOLKIT的这些DACS组成了一个强大的生态圈。不知技术上是否可行？
区块和代表可以就用BTSX的，或者其他更好的方案。
请能看懂中文的大神帮忙翻一下！~谢了。。
:)
-
I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.
For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.
-
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
I think focus and consolidation would be positive for the brand and shareholders. As a PTS and AGS holder, I don't have a problem with BTSX buying out my position but I think we should do it carefully and clearly.
So here's my proposed adjustment..
Why not create a bitBond/bitSecurity to which 50% would be allocated to AGS and 50% would be allocated to PTS? Since social consensus says 10% should be allocated to each, the bond could pay 10% interest annualized to start with a voting mechanism to adjust the interest rate after the first year. This would simplify things so much because AGS would be semi-liquid which is value gained for them, PTS would be upgraded to a DPoS bond paying set interest which is also value gained..also much greater stability!, and BTSX would have a securitized stable bond to add to its asset portfolio and would be able to simplify its branding which is also value gained. Such an idea would not break the social contract behind AGS/PTS (besides making AGS semi-liquid but whatever) and everyone wins! I've always thought of AGS/PTS as being long-term investment vehicles anyway so thinking of them as bonds/securities makes sense to me anyway. Further, the 10% interest would basically be the same thing as 10% stake as all DACs would use the same bitUSD. Thoughts?
-
fuck
the price drive me crazy
-
the price of BTSX is down and down,that the holders are losing their confidence.
BM should think of the "idea" one time more before post to discuss.
Because you are a leader now,there are too many people focus on your "idea".
obviously,this idea is very premature because it can't get the support from all of BTSX/PTS/AGS holders.that's why DNS/PTS/BTSX's price all fall down so quickly!!!
-
I have a feeling their is more going on behind the scenes. Maybe money is getting tight, maybe no marketing push or talks have fallen through with on-off ramps.
I am just not seeing the logic of the great need to change so many things at once.
Nothing going on behind the scenes... we have been very transparent. I am just looking 1 year ahead... our finances are perfectly fine at the moment. I am being transparent about the fact that our resources are currently divided into "Pre/Post Feb 28th"....
I also want to DECENTRALIZE development and financing to future proof the chains. I want to avoid dividing my attention and clean up all loose ends.
Reading this thread a few hours after I originally responded, I am very glad to see how much support this proposal has gotten. Not everyone is pleased and there are valid concerns. But the strong support for BM's proposal is much more widespread than I would have guessed. This bodes very well for the new BitShares.
donkeypong,
In general, I respect your views and your conciliatory manner. You've consistently supported Bitshares from nearly the beginning.
However, I disagree with your positive assessment about the proposal. The market is clearly flashing red warning signals that it would be unwise to ignore.
-
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?
This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
My proposal:Bring DAC\PTS\AGS to BTSX Chain as assets,that way they can be trade with BitUSD,the value no need to leave the system,
and this way,you don't have to change the total supply of BTSX,no need to confront the PTSer/AGSer,and still accomplish the goal of BitUSD for
all dac----DAC notes can be trade on BTSX with BitUSD,BTSX can have all the function and all the value,without dilution of BTSX and buy the PTS/AGSer out to fuse their anger.
It would be a compromise.
+5% +5% +5% +5%
-
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?
This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
My proposal:Bring DAC\PTS\AGS to BTSX Chain as assets,that way they can be trade with BitUSD,the value no need to leave the system,
and this way,you don't have to change the total supply of BTSX,no need to confront the PTSer/AGSer,and still accomplish the goal of BitUSD for
all dac----DAC notes can be trade on BTSX with BitUSD,BTSX can have all the function and all the value,without dilution of BTSX and buy the PTS/AGSer out to fuse their anger.
It would be a compromise.
+5% +5% +5% +5%
+5% Very similar to my suggestion above: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.msg132921#msg132921
Though I certainly prefer my suggestion as it keeps the original social contract and provides long term stability for investors.
-
crazy price！
从我的 iPad 发送，使用 Tapatalk
-
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing inflation is the selloff we are seeing right now, which means the damage has already been done.
-
BM try to make long-team plan to make bts stonger and stonger ,but there always are confuse. do it +5% +5% +5%
-
Panic selling on Bytemaster community feelers. Seen it several times before prior to a big jump in price. 8) These discussions always turn out for the best.. shareholders interest is always #1 priority.
-
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing is the selloff we are seeing right now, that is the damage has already been done.
This. Price will be lowest in uncertain periods. It will bottom out as soon as we start forging a solid path to move forward.
-
1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem
Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."
2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem
Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.
3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem
Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.
Questions
What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?
-
1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem
Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."
2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem
Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.
3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem
Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.
Questions
What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?
I like this summary.
-
What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?
I'm also curious about these questions.
-
1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem
Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."
2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem
Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.
3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem
Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.
Questions
What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?
could be done as you wrote it.
- what will be happen with DNS, vote, music etc.? how do we "collapse" them into BTS?
what is confusing me ist the fact, that bytemaster was in the past extreme against "one blockchain" because he believed one blockchain can not support the transaction load. what is about this reason you said Ethereum will fail?
-
1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem
Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."
2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem
Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.
3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem
Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.
Questions
What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?
I agree with this. With the bitshares superDAC it makes no sense to continue to have PTS and AGS though, so they should just be compensated with with BTSX shares equal to their current market valuation. The compensation should be done with a slow trickle over the next year or so.
People are panicking and I really hope to see a bytemaster post outlining something like this as soon as possible. Investors needs to get a message that makes them calm down. Like ive already written the damage from inflation has already been done through this current selloff, so there is really nothing that should prevent it from being implemented.
The important thing is for BM to communicate clearly to all stakeholders why this is in their own interest, and that it will be profitable for them in the long run. Preferably as soon as possible as every moment of uncertainty damages investor confidence.
-
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing inflation is the selloff we are seeing right now, which means the damage has already been done.
No, it's plain to see that the selloff is not just due to the possibility of inflation. This selloff is about bigger issues with the current proposal and perhaps, to some degree, a loss in faith in leadership due to the fact that they are even entertaining such a proposal.
-
Anyone care to TL;DR?
How do these proposals effect my allocation in the DACs that have been snapped?
Do I get more BTSX shares?
Or
Does my % of total shares in BTSX fall?
-
Anyone care to TL;DR?
How do these proposals effect my allocation in the DACs that have been snapped?
Do I get more BTSX shares?
Or
Does my % of total shares in BTSX fall?
Proposals wouldn't change your allocation in DACs that have been snapped. You get more BTSX share value regardless of whether its through dilution or new asset issuance.
-
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing inflation is the selloff we are seeing right now, which means the damage has already been done.
No, it's plain to see that the selloff is not just due to the possibility of inflation. This selloff is about bigger issues with the current proposal and perhaps, to some degree, a loss in faith in leadership due to the fact that they are even entertaining such a proposal.
I heard talk of moving some of the dev funding held in BTC into BTSX, in which case the selloff allows more BTSX to be purchased, providing more funding if they do some of that while the price is down.
Also the price has been going down for weeks, it's not all because of this proposal. There's a lot of uncertainty. It's people freaking out from not understanding that the proposal makes bitshares much stronger. If this proposal gets more well fleshed out and goes ahead BTSX (then called BTS) will become invincible.
This proposal gives me more confidence in the leadership as it demonstrates bytemaster has the guts to take drastic measures to navigate us through the stormy seas of crypto-startup land.
-
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing inflation is the selloff we are seeing right now, which means the damage has already been done.
No, it's plain to see that the selloff is not just due to the possibility of inflation. This selloff is about bigger issues with the current proposal and perhaps, to some degree, a loss in faith in leadership due to the fact that they are even entertaining such a proposal.
I heard talk of moving some of the dev funding held in BTC into BTSX, in which case the selloff allows more BTSX to be purchased, providing more funding if they do some of that while the price is down.
Also the price has been going down for weeks, it's not all because of this proposal. There's a lot of uncertainty. It's people freaking out from not understanding that the proposal makes bitshares much stronger. If this proposal gets more well fleshed out and goes ahead BTSX (then called BTS) will become invincible.
This proposal gives me more confidence in the leadership as it demonstrates bytemaster has the guts to take drastic measures to navigate us through the stormy seas of crypto-startup land.
+5% Matt. Agreed 100%. This truly is an excellent proposal to benefit us all, and I for one am ecstatic that BM is open to making such needed changes.
-
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing inflation is the selloff we are seeing right now, which means the damage has already been done.
No, it's plain to see that the selloff is not just due to the possibility of inflation. This selloff is about bigger issues with the current proposal and perhaps, to some degree, a loss in faith in leadership due to the fact that they are even entertaining such a proposal.
I heard talk of moving some of the dev funding held in BTC into BTSX, in which case the selloff allows more BTSX to be purchased, providing more funding if they do some of that while the price is down.
Also the price has been going down for weeks, it's not all because of this proposal. There's a lot of uncertainty. It's people freaking out from not understanding that the proposal makes bitshares much stronger. If this proposal gets more well fleshed out and goes ahead BTSX (then called BTS) will become invincible.
This proposal gives me more confidence in the leadership as it demonstrates bytemaster has the guts to take drastic measures to navigate us through the stormy seas of crypto-startup land.
BM has big balls without a doubt. THAT is the kind of leadership any enterprise needs.
-
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing inflation is the selloff we are seeing right now, which means the damage has already been done.
No, it's plain to see that the selloff is not just due to the possibility of inflation. This selloff is about bigger issues with the current proposal and perhaps, to some degree, a loss in faith in leadership due to the fact that they are even entertaining such a proposal.
I heard talk of moving some of the dev funding held in BTC into BTSX, in which case the selloff allows more BTSX to be purchased, providing more funding if they do some of that while the price is down.
Also the price has been going down for weeks, it's not all because of this proposal. There's a lot of uncertainty. It's people freaking out from not understanding that the proposal makes bitshares much stronger. If this proposal gets more well fleshed out and goes ahead BTSX (then called BTS) will become invincible.
This proposal gives me more confidence in the leadership as it demonstrates bytemaster has the guts to take drastic measures to navigate us through the stormy seas of crypto-startup land.
BM has big balls without a doubt. THAT is the kind of leadership any enterprise needs.
Let's be clear. This isn't an issue about guts or cojones. It's an issue about judgment. Does leadership have the holistic vision and depth of judgment to do what's best for Bitshares and the industry overall? Or, are they unduly influenced by a vocal minority here who are heavily vested in bitshares from pre-Feb 28th or who may have other, hidden agendas?
-
Let's be clear. This isn't an issue about guts or cojones. It's an issue about judgment. Does leadership have the holistic vision and depth of judgment to do what's best for Bitshares and the industry overall? Or, are they unduly influenced by a vocal minority here who are heavily vested in bitshares from pre-Feb 28th or who may have other, hidden agendas?
I am heavily vested in BitShares beginning in August of this year, and I think BM has cojones AND the holistic vision to steer us down the right path with this latest proposal. Everyone, regardless of when they began investing in BitShares, would benefit greatly from this proposal.
-
Let's be clear. This isn't an issue about guts or cojones. It's an issue about judgment. Does leadership have the holistic vision and depth of judgment to do what's best for Bitshares and the industry overall? Or, are they unduly influenced by a vocal minority here who are heavily vested in bitshares from pre-Feb 28th or who may have other, hidden agendas?
I hold only BTSX and I'm in favour of this because I want a strong bitUSD and an adaptable DAC that isn't competing with a bunch of other bitUSDs. Bitshares DACS all use the same business model of creating a stable bitasset backed by their shares. They could be in completely different industries (Voting, banking) but still be in pointless competition due to sharing the same business model, that of popularizing their bitasset(s). Why not bring the DACS together so they can compete against their real competitors and merge with their natural allies.
I had a look at the chinese forum (with google translate) and they seem to be confused about what's going on. Maybe they could use a translation?
-
A couple of things:
I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.
What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?
Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.
I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer.
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
The opportunity appears now.
-
A couple of things:
I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.
What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?
Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.
I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer.
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
The opportunity appears now.
some more clarification please?
-
I've buying bitusd (wish I started earlier) so I can buy back more btsx cheaper. More like dump and pump :)
-
I've buying bitusd (wish I started earlier) so I can buy back more btsx cheaper. More like dump and pump :)
Yep...I hve about 900bitUSD, but i did it to help increase the value of the peg. Looks like good karma :)
-
panic?
no, here is no panic.
tradingvolume outside of BTSX is still low. Price droped maybe 8-10% but in crypto this is nothing.
many people are hedging inside of BTSX. in my opinion this is really a great reaction of the community.
i hope the uncertainty will be resolved as fast as possible.
-
As long as my pts can be converted to bitshares has my vote I started investing in pts for the purpose of DACs I also have AGS and BTSX so as far as I'm concerned making them one is the best idea that way no matter when u starting investing nobody losing anything
-
I fully support BM's proposal, and the sooner implemented the better.
Unifying under BTS is an incredible idea and an excellent value proposition for existing stakeholders.
Disclosure: I hold PTS, AGS and BTSX.
BTS? +5%
-
Funny how people who wants one bitUSD for all chains are opposed to one DAC proposition...
. So you want Bytemaster to work on one DAC you want one universal bitUSD or whatever bitAsset, But you don't like this proposition....
I'll summarize my understanding of the two options our community have. I may be wrong in my understanding, especially because we don't have much information on the one DAC technical proposition.
1.We have one DAC and all business model will be developed on this DAC(Vote and Play and maybe DNS) let's call this DAC : Bitshares
This same idea it is developed at a furious pace with lots of funding by a competitor I'm sure you all heard about them: Ethereum. So if you know how Ethereum works, well it the same idea with Bitshares.
So what would Bitshares advantages/disadvantages be I will only cover the most debated parts(but not the ags/pts part) :
- you'll have just one token bts instead of many tokens (vote,dns,play etc). (I may be wrong about that tough)
- you'll have one unique bitAsset, i.e. bitUSD will be used by all others businesses, So you go to play a game, you download the PLAY game wallet, bitUSD is integrated already you just use it.
The absolutely amazing part about that is all your bitAssets are issued in only one place. This I can't stress how important is this part. AND this could be technically accomplished only under one Bitshare Dac proposition.
-you'll have one team working for Bitshare and so you'll have Bytemaster full attention dedicated in one place.
- Bitshares will be turing complete.
If(big if here) this could be done it would be an amazing achievement, and this should be the way to go. By the time Etherum will be finishing development, you'll already have a Turing complete platform with working applications on it.
The unknowns/disadvantages :
- Bytemaster always said that one chain to rule them all, it is not scalable. And that why Bitshare chose to take multiple chain DAC option.
Now I'm thinking this is a major change not only technical but also at philosophical approach level. So I'm thinking maybe somehow he found a way to technically solve the scalability issue, has he ?
- How long it will take to be achieved ?
-How it will affect BitshareX, DNS, PLAY ?
2. The other option we have is to not change nothing of course.
-every new chain will have its own unique token(i.e notes)
-no worry about scalability
- bitAssets will be issued in ALL DAC's that needs a stable bitAsset, not only in Bitshare X. Please understand, with this approach, this is the only way to do it. Could not be technically done any different. I.e you'll have bitUSDmusic, bitUSDdns bitUSDvote etc. The topic was discussed at length in the Vote tread.
So if I judge by the tread about the Voting DAC, most of you, don't like this approach at all. The problem is, for some reason, we understood and imagine that the bitUSD will only be issued in Bitsharex and every DAC will used it from there. This could not be done as it is now.
In my opinion BitshareX is still absolutely the best thing since Bitcoin but of course one chain Bitshares could be even better.
There was a proposition made by arhag : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390) that will solve the multiple bitAssets issue and you still have different blockchains. But of course there are trade-offs.
I think the one chain approach has it own problem but the advantages are far more beneficial than the disadvantages.
-
1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem
Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."
2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem
Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.
3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem
Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.
Questions
What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?
could be done as you wrote it.
- what will be happen with DNS, vote, music etc.? how do we "collapse" them into BTS?
what is confusing me ist the fact, that bytemaster was in the past extreme against "one blockchain" because he believed one blockchain can not support the transaction load. what is about this reason you said Ethereum will fail?
"Collapse" is a poor choice of words. This would be a merger. Mergers are done when companies are considered stronger together than apart. One or two other chains would be merged to share features, the most important of which are common bitAssets and complementary network effect. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
-
BITSHARES UNITED! 8)
BTSU
-
merger is a much easier sell than dilution. I think the market would support that if absolutely no extra equity was created and reassurance was given that dilution would never happen.
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
-
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
Fully agree.
-
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
Fully agree.
My understanding is that they do still apply, but in the long term. The multiple DACs model with their own BitAssets traded using ACCT is a great future-proof idea to deal with scalability. But it only matters in the future when the transaction volume becomes too much for a single blockchain to handle. We are no where near the limits of DPOS. It is far more beneficial for us to be united in these early stages. When scalability becomes a problem (transactions fees start to get too high), we can then split the DAC into multiple DACs that specialize in different industries.
P.S. oco101, thanks for the plug here:
There was a proposition made by arhag : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390) that will solve the multiple bitAssets issue and you still have different blockchains. But of course there are trade-offs.
My own idea is starting to grow on me more and more. The trade-offs may not be so horrible, but I would love to hear what other people think about the trade-offs.
-
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
Fully agree.
This is not "one chain to rule them all".
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)
Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.
But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.
More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)
Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.
-
Whatever happens I am sure that is does not make sense to have each DAC with its own asset trading just to facilitate having bitUSD. The establishment of a peg and creation of value for bitUSD is already happening on bitshares-x. This makes sense as bitshares-x is an exchange, that is what it is suppose to do: financial stuff. Bitshares VOTE/DNS/PLAY/MUSIC/etc. should not be even considering having an asset exchange. That is not their purpose and divides the market and weakens bitUSD.
If you do end up creating a single entity called bitshares, I think it is still important to have some kind of division of products weather it be in separate wallets or DACs or whatever. For example, the name and service of bitshares exchange should still exist. It makes sense. People know what it is instantly. Same should be true for all the other bitshares brands
-
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
Fully agree.
This is not "one chain to rule them all".
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)
Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.
But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.
More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)
Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.
Ok so we need to know which dacs/features will be merged and could potentially merged in the future. And why are third party dacs getting help? If the whole point is to focus on only BTS only then third party dacs shouldn't be taking the teams time at all. I don't know any companies that say 'next week we'll mostly be working for a different company' :s.
Edit: Unless the plan is to somehow merge with them too once they've proven themselves?
Edit: just realized this could sound rude, and I don't mean to, but there aren't other dev teams i know of working on other projects in the middle of launching a startup, that itself consists of multiple dacs! Isn't a mega-dac with fingers in multiple industries enough for one team?
-
A couple of things:
I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.
What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?
Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.
I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer.
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
The opportunity appears now.
some more clarification please?
Once Bytemaster & his trusted mates discovered the "secret sauce recipe" and realized how to gain orders of magnitude faster penetration into the market by exploiting certain opportunities that have recently appeared, it became clear that the opportunities had to be seized.
By now people should know that what they are investing in is the products of a very agile team that will stay ahead of the competition chiefly because of that agility. We make no apologies for playing to that strength. Those that are able to HODL will be rewarded. Those who can't will fall off at the hairpin turns. We will always have people who have climbed on board for the wrong reasons and they are the ones who will eject during the high-G maneuvers. Buy when they sell.
If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. :)
-
Once Bytemaster & his trusted mates discovered the "secret sauce recipe" and realized how to gain orders of magnitude faster penetration into the market by exploiting certain opportunities that have recently appeared, it became clear that the opportunities had to be seized.
By now people should know that what they are investing in is the products of a very agile team that will stay ahead of the competition chiefly because of that agility. We make no apologies for playing to that strength. Those that are able to HODL will be rewarded. Those who can't will fall off at the hairpin turns. We will always have people who have climbed on board for the wrong reasons and they are the ones who will eject during the high-G maneuvers. Buy when they sell.
If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. :)
+5% +5%
-
If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. :)
(http://www.memegenerator.eu/media/created/ejeypb.jpg)
-
1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem
Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."
2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem
Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.
3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem
Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.
Questions
What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?
could be done as you wrote it.
- what will be happen with DNS, vote, music etc.? how do we "collapse" them into BTS?
what is confusing me ist the fact, that bytemaster was in the past extreme against "one blockchain" because he believed one blockchain can not support the transaction load. what is about this reason you said Ethereum will fail?
"Collapse" is a poor choice of words. This would be a merger. Mergers are done when companies are considered stronger together than apart. One or two other chains would be merged to share features, the most important of which are common bitAssets and complementary network effect. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It's reassuring to know that the merger would selectively target one or two chains and not indiscriminately unify all of the DACS under one umbrella. However, I still have problems with the proposal as it was originally stated. The ending of PTS and AGS is particularly problematic.
1. "Buying out" PTS and AGS for 10% each would be unfair to these early donors (who supported Bitshares during its darkest hour from March till July) since this would not really be consistent with the valuations that Bytemaster expected under the alternative "secret sauce" plan involving VOTE. Bytemaster's stated expectation from a couple of days ago was that the Voting DAC would help provide the network effect for BitsharesX and would have reached the same scale as BitsharesX. Given that expectation, wouldn't a fair buy-out price provide PTS and AGS at least half of what they would've gotten under the Vote allocation, i.e., 15% = 30%/2? Furthermore, this largely ignores the value of future DACs that have not been developed yet but that were part of the claim going to PTS and AGS under the social consensus. Note that I'm not saying that a buyout of PTS and AGS would be good, but rather that the buyout scheme as originally proposed would be neither fair nor consistent.
2. By killing off PTS and AGS, wouldn't Bytemaster's incentives to help develop future DACs be eliminated? Who then would develop DACs like lending, insurance, etc., which themselves have blockbuster potential but would need the right mix of talent and capital to succeed?
-
Funny how people who wants one bitUSD for all chains are opposed to one DAC proposition...
. So you want Bytemaster to work on one DAC you want one universal bitUSD or whatever bitAsset, But you don't like this proposition....
I'll summarize my understanding of the two options our community have. I may be wrong in my understanding, especially because we don't have much information on the one DAC technical proposition.
1.We have one DAC and all business model will be developed on this DAC(Vote and Play and maybe DNS) let's call this DAC : Bitshares
This same idea it is developed at a furious pace with lots of funding by a competitor I'm sure you all heard about them: Ethereum. So if you know how Ethereum works, well it the same idea with Bitshares.
So what would Bitshares advantages/disadvantages be I will only cover the most debated parts(but not the ags/pts part) :
- you'll have just one token bts instead of many tokens (vote,dns,play etc). (I may be wrong about that tough)
- you'll have one unique bitAsset, i.e. bitUSD will be used by all others businesses, So you go to play a game, you download the PLAY game wallet, bitUSD is integrated already you just use it.
The absolutely amazing part about that is all your bitAssets are issued in only one place. This I can't stress how important is this part. AND this could be technically accomplished only under one Bitshare Dac proposition.
-you'll have one team working for Bitshare and so you'll have Bytemaster full attention dedicated in one place.
- Bitshares will be turing complete.
If(big if here) this could be done it would be an amazing achievement, and this should be the way to go. By the time Etherum will be finishing development, you'll already have a Turing complete platform with working applications on it.
The unknowns/disadvantages :
- Bytemaster always said that one chain to rule them all, it is not scalable. And that why Bitshare chose to take multiple chain DAC option.
Now I'm thinking this is a major change not only technical but also at philosophical approach level. So I'm thinking maybe somehow he found a way to technically solve the scalability issue, has he ?
- How long it will take to be achieved ?
-How it will affect BitshareX, DNS, PLAY ?
2. The other option we have is to not change nothing of course.
-every new chain will have its own unique token(i.e notes)
-no worry about scalability
- bitAssets will be issued in ALL DAC's that needs a stable bitAsset, not only in Bitshare X. Please understand, with this approach, this is the only way to do it. Could not be technically done any different. I.e you'll have bitUSDmusic, bitUSDdns bitUSDvote etc. The topic was discussed at length in the Vote tread.
So if I judge by the tread about the Voting DAC, most of you, don't like this approach at all. The problem is, for some reason, we understood and imagine that the bitUSD will only be issued in Bitsharex and every DAC will used it from there. This could not be done as it is now.
In my opinion BitshareX is still absolutely the best thing since Bitcoin but of course one chain Bitshares could be even better.
There was a proposition made by arhag : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390) that will solve the multiple bitAssets issue and you still have different blockchains. But of course there are trade-offs.
I think the one chain approach has it own problem but the advantages are far more beneficial than the disadvantages.
The question is when you choose to encounter these issues.
Right now there is plenty of room to scale on one chain and a bunch of separate chains are vulnerable.
Later, when we out-grow one chain, we will have the network effect to do spin-offs that have instant critical mass.
Get big, then divide.
Don't divide, then try to get big.
-
Get big, then divide.
Don't divide, then try to get big.
Wise words... +5%.
I love today. Mass buying opportunities + great news for the future -- what a combination.
-
A couple of things:
I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.
What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?
Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.
I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer.
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
The opportunity appears now.
some more clarification please?
Once Bytemaster & his trusted mates discovered the "secret sauce recipe" and realized how to gain orders of magnitude faster penetration into the market by exploiting certain opportunities that have recently appeared, it became clear that the opportunities had to be seized.
By now people should know that what they are investing in is the products of a very agile team that will stay ahead of the competition chiefly because of that agility. We make no apologies for playing to that strength. Those that are able to HODL will be rewarded. Those who can't will fall off at the hairpin turns. We will always have people who have climbed on board for the wrong reasons and they are the ones who will eject during the high-G maneuvers. Buy when they sell.
If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. :)
Maybe the frustration comes from creating an inflammatory thread like this with out giving us the full picture. That is not telling us the "secret sauce recipe". I understand the tactical advantage in keeping secrets but i have no idea what the tactical advantage of starting of a discussion like this but keeping the best reason for doing it to your selves.
Saying that you can't be good at everything, i trust in the your vision and competitive nature, i wouldn't dream of letting go of any of my stake.
-
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
Fully agree.
This is not "one chain to rule them all".
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)
Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.
But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.
More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)
Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.
Ok so we need to know which dacs/features will be merged and could potentially merged in the future. And why are third party dacs getting help? If the whole point is to focus on only BTS only then third party dacs shouldn't be taking the teams time at all. I don't know any companies that say 'next week we'll mostly be working for a different company' :s.
Edit: Unless the plan is to somehow merge with them too once they've proven themselves?
Edit: just realized this could sound rude, and I don't mean to, but there aren't other dev teams i know of working on other projects in the middle of launching a startup, that itself consists of multiple dacs! Isn't a mega-dac with fingers in multiple industries enough for one team?
The protoDAC model is not abandoned. BTS would become the protoDAC to be honored for 3rd parties who want to leverage our growing network effect and DAC-savvy community. These are third party specialty DACs you will definitely want to own and providing a little consulting to get them spun up is a small price to pay and consistent will all previous promises.
The proposal provides a stronger, simpler story for all the people we are about to bring into the ecosystem for the first time. Before we turn on the vacuum cleaner and start filling the funnels, now it the time to get lean, clean, and simple to explain.
-
The protoDAC model is not abandoned. BTS would become the protoDAC to be honored for 3rd parties who want to leverage our growing network effect and DAC-savvy community. These are third party specialty DACs you will definitely want to own and providing a little consulting to get them spun up is a small price to pay and consistent will all previous promises.
The proposal provides a stronger, simpler story for all the people we are about to bring into the ecosystem for the first time. Before we turn on the vacuum cleaner and start filling the funnels, now it the time to get lean, clean, and simple to explain.
Oh, so there will be snapshots of BTS for third party dacs to distribute some of their shares to? Nice :D How will that work with TITAN, can it still be done?
-
if inflation is really a big problem maybe my proposal
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9858.msg128154#msg128154
could be doing his job.
to explain it in short
enable some bitAssets to get some "privilege" to collect fees
assume we want a connection to Open Bazaar
1. I3 will create this bitAsset just call it "Open Bazaar Gateway"
2. this bitAsset has the privilige to collect extra fees of 100% of the fees the delegates gets
3. now I3 can fund this project by selling the created bitAsset on the intern exchange without inflation of BTSX
with this solution we have the ability to get new money from people to start new projects without delution of the main shares BTSX
it's like we can create under our umbrella holding BTSX new smaller companys with a small purpose
-
These are the kind of changes you don't make after a launch. It's way too much change for the market to handle and it's not the kind of change anyone wants. The market is speaking.
In my opinion if you want unity then network the DACs using technical means. Don't change the names, don't change the internal structures or centralize it. Allow all DACs to pay a fee to join this network of DACs and use that network as a sort of support network for all the DACs.
It is a company.
It is competing in a ruthless Darwinian evolutionary environment.
It must continuously adapt or die.
Arguments against change are arguments against adapting.
The dinosaurs already tried that.
:)
+5% for wise Stan
-
1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem
Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."
2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem
Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.
3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem
Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.
Questions
What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?
could be done as you wrote it.
- what will be happen with DNS, vote, music etc.? how do we "collapse" them into BTS?
what is confusing me ist the fact, that bytemaster was in the past extreme against "one blockchain" because he believed one blockchain can not support the transaction load. what is about this reason you said Ethereum will fail?
"Collapse" is a poor choice of words. This would be a merger. Mergers are done when companies are considered stronger together than apart. One or two other chains would be merged to share features, the most important of which are common bitAssets and complementary network effect. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It's reassuring to know that the merger would selectively target one or two chains and not indiscriminately unify all of the DACS under one umbrella. However, I still have problems with the proposal as it was originally stated. The ending of PTS and AGS is particularly problematic.
1. "Buying out" PTS and AGS for 10% each would be unfair to these early donors (who supported Bitshares during its darkest hour from March till July) since this would not really be consistent with the valuations that Bytemaster expected under the alternative "secret sauce" plan involving VOTE. Bytemaster's stated expectation from a couple of days ago was that the Voting DAC would help provide the network effect for BitsharesX and would have reached the same scale as BitsharesX. Given that expectation, wouldn't a fair buy-out price provide PTS and AGS at least half of what they would've gotten under the Vote allocation, i.e., 15% = 30%/2? Furthermore, this largely ignores the value of future DACs that have not been developed yet but that were part of the claim going to PTS and AGS under the social consensus. Note that I'm not saying that a buyout of PTS and AGS would be good, but rather that the buyout scheme as originally proposed would be neither fair nor consistent.
2. By killing off PTS and AGS, wouldn't Bytemaster's incentives to help develop future DACs be eliminated? Who then would develop DACs like lending, insurance, etc., which themselves have blockbuster potential but would need the right mix of talent and capital to succeed?
The proposal is to make BTS the protoDAC child of its PTS/AGS parents. Developers who want to leverage the BitShares community and its network effect would honor BTS which PTS/AGS holders would inherit. The intent is to devise a formula that makes this a seamless transition that is fair for everybody. And since we are big holders of AGS and PTS and BTSX et. al. ... you can bet we have skin in that game.
-
And my confidence is fully restored!
Me too. :)
I was reading the VOTE thread and freaking out. It seemed like the devs were focusing all their time on something that would end up competing with BTSX and that I couldnt buy right now (snapshot passed and not yet tradable!).
Lets bring everyone together into our flagshit product, and focus on making it big first. Make sure everyone in our community has a stake in the same project and are working together on it.
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.
I think the idea could make sense if the whole industry were in a period of growth but the industry is in a period of divestment as a whole. It makes no sense to do this when Bitcoin and everything with it is crashing.
-
At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.
Yes. We are too new and small to afford so much division. The whole point of the multiple DACs is to be scalable. But we are too small to worry about scalability limits right now. We just need to worry about getting that critical network effect so that we aren't wiped out by a competitor that clones the BitShares toolkit with better marketing.
After we reach a point where we have a large network effect, large market cap, and lots of new features, we can then worry about splitting the DAC into multiple ones specializing in different industries.
We can argue the details of this plan over time, but for now I will say that I agree with the general principle behind it. However, the dilution point is really important. We need to make it clear that this is a DAC that we intend to use dilution to help fund our efforts and we also need to be clear about the particular mechanics behind how dilution will work and what control shareholders have over it.
Edit: Also who knows. Maybe we will find that the way we want to tackle the scalability problem in the future is to just make this BitShares DAC into a meta-DAC as discussed here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390). Maybe the community will decide it is more important to keep all BitAssets on one DAC despite the trade-offs that proposal introduces.
I think if you want to grow large then do sharedrops with new DACs. Division and competition is good because that is how an economy and industry is supposed to work.
Bitshares branded DACs can unite without doing it this way.
-
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
Fully agree.
This is not "one chain to rule them all".
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)
Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.
But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.
More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)
Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.
Ok so we need to know which dacs/features will be merged and could potentially merged in the future. And why are third party dacs getting help? If the whole point is to focus on only BTS only then third party dacs shouldn't be taking the teams time at all. I don't know any companies that say 'next week we'll mostly be working for a different company' :s.
Edit: Unless the plan is to somehow merge with them too once they've proven themselves?
Edit: just realized this could sound rude, and I don't mean to, but there aren't other dev teams i know of working on other projects in the middle of launching a startup, that itself consists of multiple dacs! Isn't a mega-dac with fingers in multiple industries enough for one team?
The protoDAC model is not abandoned. BTS would become the protoDAC to be honored for 3rd parties who want to leverage our growing network effect and DAC-savvy community. These are third party specialty DACs you will definitely want to own and providing a little consulting to get them spun up is a small price to pay and consistent will all previous promises.
The proposal provides a stronger, simpler story for all the people we are about to bring into the ecosystem for the first time. Before we turn on the vacuum cleaner and start filling the funnels, now it the time to get lean, clean, and simple to explain.
Clearly, re-branding BitsharesX as simply "Bitshares (BTS)" would be extremely useful and advantageous. Achieving a large network effect rapidly is also very critical and is the only way to make Bitshares really future-proof.
But can both of these not be accomplished without a full-blown merger? I think the question in some people's minds is, what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? Why the abrupt pivot away from that plan? Using a separate chain to help achieve network effects would be more conservative in that it would help contain the risks associated with unexpected outcomes.
Contingency planning seems like a good idea in this rapidly-evolving space. What happens if the "secret sauce" plan doesn't quite succeed as expected (after all, Bytemaster conceded that there is a chance it wouldn't work)? A merger with dilution of Bitshares is like "betting the ranch" or going for broke. It assumes that (a) the network strategy will succeed and (b) a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base, i.e., Bitcoin or Ripple. My concern is that a full-blown merger of chains unnecessarily places the entire Bitshares enterprise at risk. If the unthinkable happens and things don't go as planned, it would be hard to unmix two chains and re-establish credibility with respect to the promise not to dilute.
From that perspective, wouldn't using a separate chain (either VOTE or even a newly-launched chain) to carry out the growth strategy be the safer route? Such a strategy wouldn't preclude re-branding BTSX as BTS. It also preserves the social consensus not to dilute the original Bitshares X chain, helping to preserve credibility. And, unlike the merger approach, the separate-chain approach would still leave many fallback options if the underlying strategy growth/marketing strategy were to fail.
-
Get big, then divide.
Don't divide, then try to get big.
Wise words... +5%.
I love today. Mass buying opportunities + great news for the future -- what a combination.
+5% +5%
-
@AmatoB @luckybit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
-
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.
If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.
The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.
-
@AmatoB @luckybit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
I think it's important not to overstate the applicability of Metcalfe's Law here. Separate chains for BTSX and for "grow the network effect" (VOTE or other) need not be mutually exclusive in terms of users--in fact, they could be part of the same "network". Besides, the plan as outlined by Stan seems to be to merge only one or two chains that provide critical complementarities. Separate chains could provide these same complementarities and need not be substitutes.
-
A couple of things:
I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.
What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?
Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.
I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer.
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
The opportunity appears now.
I am truly trying to under stand.
1. I am sure you considered that before you guys posted this their would be a bit of a dump, even if short term. Investor's never like uncertainty.
2. That means you still felt it was worth it to shake us up a bit.
Lets agree that all of us put 100% faith in what you guys have said. That their is this huge marketing push that is primed and ready to go and that their is a deal that is all but inked with a bank or credit union that would provide the liquidity/utility that we need.
Why now? Why suggest to do this now? Why not wait to suggest such a move after the push and a deal with a bank or CU? If we agree this needs to happen what advantage is their to doing this now as opposed to waiting until the 2 above things happen. Surely once the 2 above things happen we will have more of a concrete footing, compared to shaking people now. You are smart intelligent guys and I know you must have realized this would happen. So my only question is
Why shake investors before the push and deal, what advantage is their to doing this now compared to later? Answer this(please :)) and I will feel like we have a plan instead of fumbling around in a dark room looking for a light switch.
-
At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.
Yes. We are too new and small to afford so much division. The whole point of the multiple DACs is to be scalable. But we are too small to worry about scalability limits right now. We just need to worry about getting that critical network effect so that we aren't wiped out by a competitor that clones the BitShares toolkit with better marketing.
After we reach a point where we have a large network effect, large market cap, and lots of new features, we can then worry about splitting the DAC into multiple ones specializing in different industries.
We can argue the details of this plan over time, but for now I will say that I agree with the general principle behind it. However, the dilution point is really important. We need to make it clear that this is a DAC that we intend to use dilution to help fund our efforts and we also need to be clear about the particular mechanics behind how dilution will work and what control shareholders have over it.
Edit: Also who knows. Maybe we will find that the way we want to tackle the scalability problem in the future is to just make this BitShares DAC into a meta-DAC as discussed here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390). Maybe the community will decide it is more important to keep all BitAssets on one DAC despite the trade-offs that proposal introduces.
I think if you want to grow large then do sharedrops with new DACs. Division and competition is good because that is how an economy and industry is supposed to work.
Bitshares branded DACs can unite without doing it this way.
thank you. This is exactly how I feel.
Perhaps we should have a hangout---maybe tomorrow---for shareholders to speak with Dan and the team about this.
Seems there is a great deal of need for more efficient forms of communication on this topic than forums can easily digest...
-
@AmatoB @luckybit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?
Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.
-
To me it is obvious why now is the time to do this and I think it is great that this discussion is happening now. In fact, I wish it had been sooner.
You want to be organized, simple, clean, and straightforward when you present yourself to the larger market. You don't want to be making changes once you really launch. The mass market would never put up with these branding identity issues (not to mention the fundamental concept changes).
You gotta have your sh*t together to succeed (or at least look like it). This is not a game, people will not be forgiving or understanding. This is real serious money in real life.
-
But can both of these not be accomplished without a full-blown merger? I think the question in some people's minds is, what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? Why the abrupt pivot away from that plan? Using a separate chain to help achieve network effects would be more conservative in that it would help contain the risks associated with unexpected outcomes.
"what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? <- Fragmentation.
Contingency planning seems like a good idea in this rapidly-evolving space. What happens if the "secret sauce" plan doesn't quite succeed as expected (after all, Bytemaster conceded that there is a chance it wouldn't work)? A merger with dilution of Bitshares is like "betting the ranch" or going for broke. It assumes that (a) the network strategy will succeed and (b) a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base, i.e., Bitcoin or Ripple. My concern is that a full-blown merger of chains unnecessarily places the entire Bitshares enterprise at risk. If the unthinkable happens and things don't go as planned, it would be hard to unmix two chains and re-establish credibility with respect to the promise not to dilute.
The "secret sauce" plan is not really that issue here. The reasons for each dilution will have to stand on its own merits. We do not have the information to be able to vote on the dilution for the "secret sauce" plan at this time. The greater issue we are confronting is how to fund our marci DAC BTS(X) for the future. If it can't be funded, resources will go to our sister DACs which will create competition as many of the feature sets in BTS(X) can be duplicated by them and they will have more robust financing. This will create a market mess. We will start canalizing ourselves.
"a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base". <- This is where you are not understanding the concept of a bitshare. A bitshare is not a coin. **though bitUSD may be seen as a coin, it is pegged to the dollar not to the value of BTS(X)** It is a value representation of a profit driven company and thus the task that it must perform is totally different.
-
Perhaps we should have a hangout---maybe tomorrow---for shareholders to speak with Dan and the team about this.
Seems there is a great deal of need for more efficient forms of communication on this topic than forums can easily digest...
+5% +5%
-
join the Mumble Discussion on this 18-page topic. This is obviously getting heated...so lets bring this to a more efficient communication channel. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10173.0
-
But can both of these not be accomplished without a full-blown merger? I think the question in some people's minds is, what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? Why the abrupt pivot away from that plan? Using a separate chain to help achieve network effects would be more conservative in that it would help contain the risks associated with unexpected outcomes.
"what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? <- Fragmentation.
Contingency planning seems like a good idea in this rapidly-evolving space. What happens if the "secret sauce" plan doesn't quite succeed as expected (after all, Bytemaster conceded that there is a chance it wouldn't work)? A merger with dilution of Bitshares is like "betting the ranch" or going for broke. It assumes that (a) the network strategy will succeed and (b) a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base, i.e., Bitcoin or Ripple. My concern is that a full-blown merger of chains unnecessarily places the entire Bitshares enterprise at risk. If the unthinkable happens and things don't go as planned, it would be hard to unmix two chains and re-establish credibility with respect to the promise not to dilute.
The "secret sauce" plan is not really that issue here. The reasons for each dilution will have to stand on its own merits. We do not have the information to be able to vote on the dilution for the "secret sauce" plan at this time. The greater issue we are confronting is how to fund our marci DAC BTS(X) for the future. If it can't be funded, resources will go to our sister DACs which will create competition as many of the feature sets in BTS(X) can be duplicated by them and they will have more robust financing. This will create a market mess. We will start canalizing ourselves.
"a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base". <- This is where you are not understanding the concept of a bitshare. A bitshare is not a coin. **though bitUSD may be seen as a coin, it is pegged to the dollar not to the value of BTS(X)** It is a value representation of a profit driven company and thus the task that it must perform is totally different.
My broader point is that credibility and perceptions do matter. Whether Bitshares is perceived to have adhered to the original social consensus of 50% PTS, AGS does matter. I'm not against dilution, by the way. Some form of dilution may be needed to achieve a large network effect before competitors do. But I am very skeptical about whether it's a good idea to hardwire dilution into the main chain via a merger. Using a separate, dilutable chain to fund Bitshares growth seems more sensible because it can help preserve the social consensus and the credibility of BitsharesX. Perhaps more importantly, it can help spread out and compartmentalize risks while preserving flexibility across future contingencies.
-
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
Fully agree.
This is not "one chain to rule them all".
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)
Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.
But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.
More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)
Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.
Ok so we need to know which dacs/features will be merged and could potentially merged in the future. And why are third party dacs getting help? If the whole point is to focus on only BTS only then third party dacs shouldn't be taking the teams time at all. I don't know any companies that say 'next week we'll mostly be working for a different company' :s.
Edit: Unless the plan is to somehow merge with them too once they've proven themselves?
Edit: just realized this could sound rude, and I don't mean to, but there aren't other dev teams i know of working on other projects in the middle of launching a startup, that itself consists of multiple dacs! Isn't a mega-dac with fingers in multiple industries enough for one team?
The protoDAC model is not abandoned. BTS would become the protoDAC to be honored for 3rd parties who want to leverage our growing network effect and DAC-savvy community. These are third party specialty DACs you will definitely want to own and providing a little consulting to get them spun up is a small price to pay and consistent will all previous promises.
The proposal provides a stronger, simpler story for all the people we are about to bring into the ecosystem for the first time. Before we turn on the vacuum cleaner and start filling the funnels, now it the time to get lean, clean, and simple to explain.
Clearly, re-branding BitsharesX as simply "Bitshares (BTS)" would be extremely useful and advantageous. Achieving a large network effect rapidly is also very critical and is the only way to make Bitshares really future-proof.
But can both of these not be accomplished without a full-blown merger? I think the question in some people's minds is, what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? Why the abrupt pivot away from that plan? Using a separate chain to help achieve network effects would be more conservative in that it would help contain the risks associated with unexpected outcomes.
Contingency planning seems like a good idea in this rapidly-evolving space. What happens if the "secret sauce" plan doesn't quite succeed as expected (after all, Bytemaster conceded that there is a chance it wouldn't work)? A merger with dilution of Bitshares is like "betting the ranch" or going for broke. It assumes that (a) the network strategy will succeed and (b) a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base, i.e., Bitcoin or Ripple. My concern is that a full-blown merger of chains unnecessarily places the entire Bitshares enterprise at risk. If the unthinkable happens and things don't go as planned, it would be hard to unmix two chains and re-establish credibility with respect to the promise not to dilute.
From that perspective, wouldn't using a separate chain (either VOTE or even a newly-launched chain) to carry out the growth strategy be the safer route? Such a strategy wouldn't preclude re-branding BTSX as BTS. It also preserves the social consensus not to dilute the original Bitshares X chain, helping to preserve credibility. And, unlike the merger approach, the separate-chain approach would still leave many fallback options if the underlying strategy growth/marketing strategy were to fail.
Everybody faced that option this weekend.
If the secret sauce works then VOTE would rocket past BTSX and inherit all the cool new stuff in the hopper.
People didn't seem to like that option. :)
(http://i.gyazo.com/4accf8293b0e919802955b99994fe6f0.png)
-
@AmatoB @luckybit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?
Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.
Read this weekend's discussions about whether having one bitUSD or many BitUSDs is better.
-
@AmatoB @luckybit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?
Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.
Read this weekend's discussions about whether having one bitUSD or many BitUSDs is better.
I don't think Metcalfe's Law applies either. It was developed for telecommunications networks. The issue here is how to you best build BitShares for the long run. Unification makes sense.
-
@AmatoB @luckybit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?
Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.
Read this weekend's discussions about whether having one bitUSD or many BitUSDs is better.
Yes, will definitely try to read up on that. I'm not sure if it's discussed therein, but would it be possible to have a single BitUSD and cross-chain trading across separate chains? That would seem to be the most powerful model. With cross-chain exchange, even DACs with their own chains (e.g., Music, Play) could help support liquidity and the BitUSD peg.
-
@AmatoB @luckybit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?
Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.
Read this weekend's discussions about whether having one bitUSD or many BitUSDs is better.
Yes, will definitely try to read up on that. I'm not sure if it's discussed therein, but would it be possible to have a single BitUSD and cross-chain trading across separate chains? That would seem to be the most powerful model. With cross-chain exchange, even DACs with their own chains (e.g., Music, Play) could help support liquidity and the BitUSD peg.
Cross-chain trading has issues that would be incompatible with Bytemaster's Grand Vision.
We need to get the architecture right, now, before we engage the warp engines.
-
Mumble hangout is happening as I type this message, bytemaster is answering questions from the community.
-
BTSX is rallying now. That panic dump was the bottom of this downtrend. Buy all you can now, imo.
-
Mumble hangout is happening as I type this message, bytemaster is answering questions from the community.
I can't listen now, but please tell me someone is recording.
-
My Proposal:
+5% +5%
-
Mumble hangout is happening as I type this message, bytemaster is answering questions from the community.
I can't listen now, but please tell me someone is recording.
several people are recording ..
-
My Proposal:
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
I fully agree with with all the proposals above except there is a subtle but important issue with the bolded proposal 4):
The difference between a one-time buy-out of other DACs (which I do support) and switching from a deflationary hard-cap limited crypto equity and "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is a Very Big Deal.
The original (implied) promise was of an incorruptible Decentralized Autonomous Corporation with Bitcoin-like deflationary shares whose "bylaws" are defined in open source software. Such a DAC would not be subject to human whims and compromises and would do exactly what its software said it should do.
Here's the real question, once "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is encoded into software rules, do we have a DAC anymore or is this now a DAD (Decentralized Autonomous Democracy ?).
I'm posing this question here as a topic for a real debate ...
I don't claim to have a crystal ball or to know "the answer" if one is better than another, but it seems that going from a deflationary hard-bounded crypto equity to something resembling Apple stock (which can also be diluted without limit through a board vote, presumably on behalf of the best interest of all shareholders) should be debated on its own without other issues being commingled into the debate.
-
Bitshares permits holders of Bitshares X to manage the quantity of Bitshares X without dependence on any off blockchain mechanisms. Additional Bitshares X can be created when shareholders vote to do so and will be given to a recipient chosen by shareholders .
This dilution business sounds like NuBits. This creates uncertainty as to who gets and why "nu"Bitshares are created.
-
Here's the real question, once "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is encoded into software rules, do we have a DAC anymore or is this now a DAD (Decentralized Autonomous Democracy ?).
I'm posing this question here as a topic for a real debate ...
I don't claim to have a crystal ball or to know "the answer" if one is better than another, but it seems that going from a deflationary hard-bounded crypto equity to something resembling Apple stock (which can also be diluted without limit through a board vote, presumably on behalf of the best interest of all shareholders) should be debated on its own without other issues being commingled into the debate.
Well, its certainly still a company - just like Apple in the characteristics you mention.
It is far more decentralized that Bitcoin.
So you might better ask whether it is still autonomous. :)
Yes, in every way that matters in the original concept. No central authority can corrupt it (successfully). If delegates get taken down in their jurisdictions others will pop up. Its code is still inspectable and its data is still transparent. And if DAC Sun goes away, someone else will pick up the baton and carry on.
And it is infinitely more answerable to its shareholders than Bitcoin and most of its alts.
-
Here's the real question, once "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is encoded into software rules, do we have a DAC anymore or is this now a DAD (Decentralized Autonomous Democracy ?).
It is still a DAC (Decentralized Autonomous Company). Companies have shareholders. Shareholders get to vote on decisions. It is not a democracy in the traditional sense because it is not 1 person = 1 vote but rather 1 share = 1 vote.
Also, not everything can be made autonomous. Strategic decisions still need to be made by humans if we want the company to survive against all of its competitors. The most fair way of deciding these decisions is through shareholder vote.
Edit: Stan beat me to it.
-
join the Mumble Discussion on this 18-page topic. This is obviously getting heated...so lets bring this to a more efficient communication channel. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10173.0
Download the audio:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B521Uvk7QIpYUlBBQld2b25pTVE/view?usp=sharing
-
I step away for one day! Sucks that I missed the impromtu Mumble. Thanks for posting the audio.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9f/9f26f19c802fbc0bcb69661e1479fec2027fcd40d1bb655da3fb6e9480e2bfa4.jpg)
I didn't see agent86 chime in, did I miss it in the last 20 pages of posts?
This topic was presented as a proposal but it's one that's being pushed pretty hard by BM and Stan. Is it still a proposal?
It has my vote for whatever that is worth. I like the idea of I3 working on one DAC. One blockchain. One product to market. One technology to explain to folks.
The buyout of PTS/AGS is a one time pain point from a PR and investor relations perspective but the rewards will be on going.
When I worked for IBM we found that it would take us three months to change the design of the box we shipped a product in. Clearly I3 under Stan and Dan's leadership do not have that issue.
-
I step away for one day! Sucks that I missed the impromtu Mumble. Thanks for posting the audio.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9f/9f26f19c802fbc0bcb69661e1479fec2027fcd40d1bb655da3fb6e9480e2bfa4.jpg)
I didn't see agent86 chime in, did I miss it in the last 20 pages of posts?
This topic was presented as a proposal but it's one that's being pushed pretty hard by BM and Stan. Is it still a proposal?
It has my vote for whatever that is worth. I like the idea of I3 working on one DAC. One blockchain. One product to market. One technology to explain to folks.
The buyout of PTS/AGS is a one time pain point from a PR and investor relations perspective but the rewards will be on going.
When I worked for IBM we found that it would take us three months to change the design of the box we shipped a product in. Clearly I3 under Stan and Dan's leadership do not have that issue.
It's still a proposal in the sense that stakeholders will ultimately have the authority to decide whether it gets implemented or not, either by voting for delegates, or by a system that is made specifically for voting on hard forks that BM outlined in another thread.
-
My many chinese fellows don't have fine logic, what's even worse they tend to shout loudly eagering themselves to be heared. It's just so typical of chinese. As being chinese myself, my deep apologies for that.
I think the main point of bm proposal is synergy future bts can benefit from all potential dac application. Another consequence/point is that if this proposal has come to a reality (which I in favor wholeheartly) means a lot heavier burden/responsiblity will lay on bm himself by competing with other dac dev team.
One conculsion: I hate to say this , because this woould make many my chinese fellows think I am stupid, that right now we are more investing in bm rather than investing in bts or I3. As a spectacular coder, decent and openess guy like bm, have my full support.
-
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.
If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.
The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.
Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.
-
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.
If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.
The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.
Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.
My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion. Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.
-
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.
If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.
The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.
Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.
My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion. Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.
It's not a question of whether we can do something useful with the funds available.
It's the rate at which we can grow the network effect.
Going slow to stretch the resources is possible. It is also fatal.
Look around the industry. We are in a race.
This is how serious companies win races.
-
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.
If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.
The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.
Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.
My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion. Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.
It's not a question of whether we can do something useful with the funds available.
It's the rate at which we can grow the network effect.
Going slow to stretch the resources is possible. It is also fatal.
Look around the industry. We are in a race.
This is how serious companies win races.
Being the only cryptocurrency that has the ability to allocate capital for marketing and development purposes is going to be such an insane competitive advantage once things starts to ramp up.
Imagine if two real world companies were competing to capture a market, such as social media. One of them is able to issue new shares (including to VC's), and one of them is not. It will not even be a competition, it will be steam rolling.
I'd been doubting if we would be able to actually kill bitcoin, but if our community embraces share issuance then we will completely gobble it up. I fantasize about the day we can hire Gavin and gmaxwell and others as delegate-developers. Will be amazing.
-
Being the only cryptocurrency that has the ability to allocate capital for marketing and development purposes is going to be such an insane competitive advantage once things starts to ramp up.
Imagine if two real world companies were competing to capture a market, such as social media. One of them is able to issue new shares (including to VC's), and one of them is not. It will not even be a competition, it will be steam rolling.
I'd been doubting if we would be able to actually kill bitcoin, but if our community embraces share issuance then we will completely gobble it up. I fantasize about the day we can hire Gavin and gmaxwell and others as delegate-developers. Will be amazing.
I wish your explanation had its own thread--more people need to understand how important this can be for the future.
-
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.
If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.
The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.
Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.
My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion. Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.
It's not a question of whether we can do something useful with the funds available.
It's the rate at which we can grow the network effect.
Going slow to stretch the resources is possible. It is also fatal.
Look around the industry. We are in a race.
This is how serious companies win races.
+5% +5% Well said Stan
-
If 3i can use the price of 2.28 to buy PTS and AGS.
I can quit this game!
-
Sorry guys my English is not very good, use translation tools.
I think only a certain variety of USD is better than USD, USD kind of too much results may be each one will unsucceed.
Can make based I3 TOOLKIT' DACS independently, but run in the same block chain.Thus, USD can flow in different DAC
USD issuance powers are limited to BITSX, so USD was only one, keep the core competence of BTSX.
If a DAC is successful, there is a need for the increase of USD, enhance the BTSX value, the win-win situation, and a DAC is not successful is not on the whole ecosystem cause what effect. So all of these DACS based on TOOLKIT to form a powerful ecological circle. I do not know whether it is technically feasible?
For the already released DNS, it's very simple,we can get a point in time, the existing DNS address for the snapshot, and then re released a X chain based on the new DNS, address asset retention, re register ID (to prevent X ID same name)
Through DNS, MUSIC, VOTE these have come out and coming out of the DACS, the BTSX BITSUSD popularized, the initial establishment of the DACS ecosystem I3.
So, later if someone wants to fork BTS, their USD will be very difficult to get market recognition, cannot competition with the I3 DACS
If we do not have the same block chain, sooner or later I3 will still have independent DACS, face a variety of problems with USD, because X can not put all the functions, it will increase the risk of system. why don't we solve it now?
It can be understood as, BTSX is a parent company, other based design of 3I TOOLKIT' DACS is the subsidiary company ,delegates appointed by the company, they maintain the entire BTS, rather than a specific DAC.
The one chain and representative can use BTSX, or other better solutions.
So AGS and PTS scheme is also no change, at least without changing the rules too much, BTSX said to issue has caused a very bad influence on the market, especially in the initial stage of I3 development that now. I am a Chinese, my reaction to the market very intuitive feel, because many people here have BTSX.
Based on I3 TOOLKIT'DACS can mutually help each other more powerful, not the resource consumption in the competition,this is very regrettable.
Again,what I want to say is use one USD---BTSXUSD.BTSX don't focus too many functions, the parent company mainly do banks and exchanges ,incude other DACS's main coin. ,So we can win-win situation whith other DACs.Who don't use X based USD, it will be difficult to achieve success.
The advantages outweigh the disadvantages,I think it is worth to do it.
-
If 3i can use the price of 2.28 to buy PTS and AGS.
I can quit this game!
You represent the views of the people 50% :P :P :P
On this matter, I want to say: This is our “big thing"
-
Conclusion: sacrifice the benefit of btsx shareholders in order to compensate that of ags/pts holders. But why not allocate annual bonus to ags/pts holders as an indemnity???
as a predict, btsx will be stronger, better! It sounds very nice but when? Also, even if btsx shareholders have no loss, invictus will still push forward btsx ecosystem for success. right?
-
well ,BTSXer thought they've been robbed by PTS/AGSer,and the PTS/AGSer thought they've been robbed by BTSXer either.
:P
Good point :D
-
BTSX is rallying now. That panic dump was the bottom of this downtrend. Buy all you can now, imo.
People are funny.
Devs run out a proposal that revolutionizes a revolutionary technology.
People panic sell.
Community realizes devs are awesome.
People panic buy.
-
These are the kind of changes you don't make after a launch. It's way too much change for the market to handle and it's not the kind of change anyone wants. The market is speaking.
In my opinion if you want unity then network the DACs using technical means. Don't change the names, don't change the internal structures or centralize it. Allow all DACs to pay a fee to join this network of DACs and use that network as a sort of support network for all the DACs.
It is a company.
It is competing in a ruthless Darwinian evolutionary environment.
It must continuously adapt or die.
Arguments against change are arguments against adapting.
The dinosaurs already tried that.
:)
+5% for wise Stan
Folks need to understand BTS is not a currency with a fixed supply like BTC.
-
BTSX is rallying now. That panic dump was the bottom of this downtrend. Buy all you can now, imo.
People are funny.
Devs run out a proposal that revolutionizes a revolutionary technology.
People panic sell.
Community realizes devs are awesome.
People panic buy.
Lol +5%
Do you happen to also be a kidd oldman?
-
I step away for one day! Sucks that I missed the impromtu Mumble. Thanks for posting the audio.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9f/9f26f19c802fbc0bcb69661e1479fec2027fcd40d1bb655da3fb6e9480e2bfa4.jpg)
I didn't see agent86 chime in, did I miss it in the last 20 pages of posts?
This topic was presented as a proposal but it's one that's being pushed pretty hard by BM and Stan. Is it still a proposal?
It has my vote for whatever that is worth. I like the idea of I3 working on one DAC. One blockchain. One product to market. One technology to explain to folks.
The buyout of PTS/AGS is a one time pain point from a PR and investor relations perspective but the rewards will be on going.
When I worked for IBM we found that it would take us three months to change the design of the box we shipped a product in. Clearly I3 under Stan and Dan's leadership do not have that issue.
I am particularly found of this post... the reason for that is to be further analyzed...
but for now it is highly rated by my patent pending good post discovering bot!
-
If someone is interested I've made a comparison to the old model here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10189.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10189.0)
There are some questions I cannot answer though.
-
A couple of things:
I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.
What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?
Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.
I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer.
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
The opportunity appears now.
some more clarification please?
Once Bytemaster & his trusted mates discovered the "secret sauce recipe" and realized how to gain orders of magnitude faster penetration into the market by exploiting certain opportunities that have recently appeared, it became clear that the opportunities had to be seized.
By now people should know that what they are investing in is the products of a very agile team that will stay ahead of the competition chiefly because of that agility. We make no apologies for playing to that strength. Those that are able to HODL will be rewarded. Those who can't will fall off at the hairpin turns. We will always have people who have climbed on board for the wrong reasons and they are the ones who will eject during the high-G maneuvers. Buy when they sell.
If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. :)
So basically those that don't just go with the flow and "+5%" every decision without all the actual information behind those decision are the "wrong" investors and good riddance if they leave because they actually want to invest based on facts and not vague cryptic comments that tell them nothing?
If we are going to debate what the best course of action is as a community then let's get all the facts on the table, otherwise this is all a very pointless exercise. If there is some secret that somehow makes sense of you guys turning everything on it's head then let's hear it. If you can't divulge it and instead want the community to go along with the "new world order" you're proposing then don't propose it and just do it.
Why bother engaging the community only to respond to inquisitive comments with three paragraphs that essentially boil down to "just trust us, we aren't going to explain the information we have that we are claiming is justification for the decisions we want to make, if that's a problem then you're not a good fit and get out"?
Listen, if you guys can't divulge some secret and you think you know best, then don't pretend like you want the community's input. The community's input is worthless if you don't give them the same background information you have. This whole episode feels like a charade. If you guys know best and you want to build your DAC based on information you don't want to share just tell everyone how it's gonna be and to suck it up.
Quite frankly there is a fairly large portion of this community that will rubber stamp whatever new decision you roll out anyway.
BEFORE
I3: "Multiple chains/DACs that compete will scale better and out perform any single multi function DAC"
Community: "Brilliant!"
LATER
I3: "Consolidating DACs into a single DAC will simplify things and help tie up loose ends"
Community: "Brilliant!"
BEFORE
I3: "We are going to create a token that when bought will give shares of the multitude of DACs to be developed"
Community: "Genius!"
LATER
I3: "Even though we've just begun, let's end that token that is supposed to give shares in future DACs, further let's just do one main DAC after all, thereby mostly invalidating the entire concept behind PTS and AGS"
Community: "Genius!"
...etc
Maybe it's true that there is some secret that makes it a clear win for you guys to make all the proposed changes. I'm not saying this is the wrong move from a technical or market standpoint, I don't have all the information to even begin to make that judgement. What this does say for sure, without a doubt, is that any prospective investor in the Bitshares ecosystem should absolutely not invest based on the technology or code but instead in the I3 team, because anything planned or stated is obviously not something to be counted on and could and likely will change 180 degrees at some point.
I really hope that this secret is as big and awesome as you hint it is so that it will hopefully offset the huge hit to your guys' credibility.
In case the above didn't make it obvious, I'm against this proposal. Not based on it's technical merits but because I don't like being solicited as an investor for something only for it to be changed so fundamentally after my investment is made.
I get that this is an evolving environment and that there are a ton of variables at play. it's one reason I like the thought of multiple DACs and multiple chains. BTSX was planned with a fixed cap and a burn so that the total supply shrunk over time. My investment in BTSX reflected what I thought about those decisions. Sounds like other DACs were planning to incorporate some kinds of dilution schemes. Great, now I can invest in those DACs based on those merits. Then over time it can be determined which features were successful or not.
Similarly my investment in PTS and AGS reflected my desire to gain at least some minimum stake in all new DACs. Had I known there would be one DAC then I wouldn't have wasted buying PTS for a smaller stake in BTSX just to have those supposedly liquid tokens bought out at low prices to be rolled into the new single DAC planned.
As for dilution I get why it could be good for the DAC, IN THEORY. Quite frankly I just don't trust that additional BTSX are going to benefit the DAC as much as they will hurt it. Nobody can guarantee that the use of new funds will bring as much value as they cost to original investors. I haven't seen a detailed proposal of exactly how and where those funds will be distributed and how it will be tracked to know exactly how much capital those extra funds brought in. Just because some other standard companies use dilution successfully, doesn't automatically mean it will be the same for Bitshares.
Luckily I do have some trust in the I3 team, but if that's all I have to go on then this investment feels like an even greater gamble than before. Obviously I'll just have to let go of trying to weigh the technical decisions made because they will likely get reversed soon after in spectacular fashion possibly due to information I'll be told exists but am not privy to.
There really isn't anything wrong with I3 determining the course of their products, I think I'm most annoyed that it's presented as if the community's input matters and that big news are dangled but not divulged. I guess in the end just keep trying to build the most successful DAC or DACs you can, good luck.
-
I love the new proposal, but hate the confusion/instability. Too many delegates, that's true. Incoherent and embarrassing POW for PTS, that's true. Fixing illiquid AGS, great. One BitUSD to rule them all, huge. And I'm all for patience for the marketing side.
But the functional 1.0 wallet must be released, and the marketing campaign be launched at some point. i3 will have to focus on development. I hope this proposal will pass, and after that, no more messing around...
-
merging BTSX with PTS and AGS is not necessarily a bad thing, if we do it right.
if someone can come up with a proposal for the merger that are signed/approved by majority of share holders (>51%) of BTSX, PTS and AGS, then we have no option but to merge. I think it will become a historical event.
we are dealing with digital assets here, collecting signatures from share holders wouldn't be that hard.
-
merging BTSX with PTS and AGS is not necessarily a bad thing, if we do it right.
if someone can come up with a proposal for the merger that are signed/approved by majority of share holders (>51%) of BTSX, PTS and AGS, then we have no option but to merge. I think it will become a historical event.
we are dealing with digital assets here, collecting signatures from share holders wouldn't be that hard.
In a traditional incorporated company, shareholders vote on issues affecting the company direction. Bitshares is branded as a DAC - Decentralised Autonomous Company. If it aspires to be functioning like a traditional company, it needs to provide a way for its shareholders to vote on important issues such as merger and acquisition. A motion has been raised to merge the DACs and make fundamental changes to PTS and AGS. There are consequences that would impact each and every shareholders. Can Bitshares live up to its name and provide its shareholders a means to vote on the motion?
-
Here's the real question, once "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is encoded into software rules, do we have a DAC anymore or is this now a DAD (Decentralized Autonomous Democracy ?).
I'm posing this question here as a topic for a real debate ...
I don't claim to have a crystal ball or to know "the answer" if one is better than another, but it seems that going from a deflationary hard-bounded crypto equity to something resembling Apple stock (which can also be diluted without limit through a board vote, presumably on behalf of the best interest of all shareholders) should be debated on its own without other issues being commingled into the debate.
Well, its certainly still a company - just like Apple in the characteristics you mention.
It is far more decentralized that Bitcoin.
So you might better ask whether it is still autonomous. :)
Yes, in every way that matters in the original concept. No central authority can corrupt it (successfully). If delegates get taken down in their jurisdictions others will pop up. Its code is still inspectable and its data is still transparent. And if DAC Sun goes away, someone else will pick up the baton and carry on.
And it is infinitely more answerable to its shareholders than Bitcoin and most of its alts.
Hi Stan, I was delighted to hear both Dan and yourself speaking lucid on mumble, and much of your reasoning feels valid. Obviously, there is no unique way forward, and every of the discussed moves may end up in failure, survival, or success, depending on upcoming events and other circumstances. it is very important to the community to keep i3 motivated, and for i3 to get community backing. however, i must admit, that even though the mumble session alleviated many concerns and brought most participants into cheering mood - perhaps now its time for the community to reflect non-emotionally and orderly discuss the pros/cons of main possible future roads?
I sense the issues alexkravets, amenocon and some others are pointing to are indeed quite fundamental. Via BTS United we might achieve faster adoption, marketing success plus concentration of efforts (which is paractical and emotionally rewarding). Though does it mean compromising the very soul, ideological foundations of the initial crypto-equity project with additional capital infusions? Meaning that BTS is rather innovative i3- and shareholder-powered tech company, rather than a novel entity behind tectonic shift in economic paradigms? Would you consider continuing debate about these issues more disturbing or desirable? I just feel that such fundamental shifts require more time to be reflected and decided upon by all stakeholders: leaders, developers and investors, unless there is an extreme urgency...
Thanks!
-
I believe 1 super DAC with everything is a very good move. Simplicity is always better.
My only concern as an AGS shareholder after the 28th snapshot is that I gave up all my liquidity in order to get cheap shares on the future DACs before they explode. If we do merge in 1 DAC everything else I hope there is a good plan to compensate the AGS shareholders after the 28th snapshot. If I am getting diluted, or don't have again liquidity with this merging then no matter how BTS increase in the future I can't see how I will benefit from that since I was expecting to finally make some profit from the upcoming DACs.
Please consider this in your decisions.
-
The mumble session was excellent..... +5%
I'm more confident in Dan, Stan and Bitshares than ever for continuing to innovate and adapt within a highly competitive market. The idea that our investments would be best served by rigidly ignoring new information or experience is ridiculous.
People i've been trying to get interested in Bitshares have said they would be more interested should the new proposal be implemented.....
Disclosure - founder, PTS, AGS before and after 28th Feb (way more after) and BTSx holder
-
What I'd like to asap is confirmation from the VOTE team that they will join up with BTS rather than launching their own blockchain, as BM said he hadn't consulted with them about this.
-
Why do you have any confirmation from DNS,Music teams that they will join up with BTS?
-
Why do you have any confirmation from DNS,Music teams that they will join up with BTS?
Peertracks is independent, DNS I'm not sure.
-
Amencon, mat608 and mf-tzo, would you be prepared to also repeat your points on some of these mumble-hangouts with Bytemaster?
You all touch on some very valid concerns and I would like to have your perspectives be part of those real-time discussion as well. Especially since some of you feel that I did not do a good enough job defending the multiple separate chain idea.
I admit that I now favor the idea of having separate DACs be developed more independently from the bitshares team, because I think having only Dacs developed by the bitshares team would be just as bad as having a single blockchain. So my expectation of the future is now that trying to help bitshares reach more success in the short term, will boost adoption rate of separate blockchains and (D)Pos by others more, than having a crippled small team try and create a complete ecosystem from day one, complete with competitors. I'm noticing that some famous people in the industry are looking into Pos now as well, whereas they were completely opposed to the concept not too long ago.
Also on the topic of changing course and being inconsistent, I don't completely agree with that point of view. It does not account for this being a completely new experiment, with no definitive answers. Do keep in mind that bitUsd was not a finalized or even as trusted a concept as it is now. Also because of the idea of the bitUsd mechanic of btsx being part of most of the DACs planned by bitshares in the future, which was not part of the perceived reality when the plan was to create these separate selfsufficient blockchains, the situation did change from that time and it does make sense to reevaluate the path with this new development. What path is chosen should indeed be left to the individual stakeholders and what they believe is the best road forward.
Would be nice if people talked and ask questions first before panicking and selling before anything is even close to being decided. For one the details on how the percentage stakes would be divided has not even come up.
-
I love the new proposal, but hate the confusion/instability. Too many delegates, that's true. Incoherent and embarrassing POW for PTS, that's true. Fixing illiquid AGS, great. One BitUSD to rule them all, huge. And I'm all for patience for the marketing side.
But the functional 1.0 wallet must be released, and the marketing campaign be launched at some point. i3 will have to focus on development. I hope this proposal will pass, and after that, no more messing around...
Re "Fixing illiquid AGS" It just occurred to me that AGS is already liquid in that we gave PTS and BTS to i3 in return for AGS and those BTS and PTS were given as liquid assets to fund development.
-
I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS. I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.
I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS? Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?
-
would an AGS 2.0 event be viable to gather the funds in need?
-
would an AGS 2.0 event be viable to gather the funds in need?
Yes but far too centralized.
-
@amencon
you obviously didn't read the Vote DAC thread if you think the community has nothing to do with this decision.
-
I love the new proposal, but hate the confusion/instability. Too many delegates, that's true. Incoherent and embarrassing POW for PTS, that's true. Fixing illiquid AGS, great. One BitUSD to rule them all, huge. And I'm all for patience for the marketing side.
But the functional 1.0 wallet must be released, and the marketing campaign be launched at some point. i3 will have to focus on development. I hope this proposal will pass, and after that, no more messing around...
Re "Fixing illiquid AGS" It just occurred to me that AGS is already liquid in that we gave PTS and BTS to i3 in return for AGS and those BTS and PTS were given as liquid assets to fund development.
AGS is not liquid. There is currently no exit path for people holding AGS.
-
would an AGS 2.0 event be viable to gather the funds in need?
Yes but far too centralized.
I don't support any further ags style campaigns. Even peer tracks.
-
why not part of the fees (up to each delegate) are used for the funds? Though I honestly don't think that would be enough. I'm just brainstorming here
-
I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS. I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.
I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS? Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?
AGS/PTS value comes from all future DACs. If these future dacs are now to be a division of bst(x) then we are TRANSFERING the value that used to belong to PTS/AGS. Therefore they will be useless and have no value. Bts(x) will need to compensate the AGE,PTS holders with new BTS<- this is where the value was transferred to.
What is stated above relates to dacs launched by I3/the bitshares team. Third parties can still use the bitshares tool kit and pay a percentage to (now) all BTS(x) holders
-
I honestly dislike the general panicking mood around BM's proposal.
As it was mentionned before, survival of the fittest is the name of the game in those new and unchartered territories. Being agile and able to react/adapt quickly is definitely an edge, but I do also understand those reluctant to change, since change is always a source of uncertainties. And uncertainty equals a price drop, because the speculators are off to a new and more promising opportunity for a quick buck.
And there's also those who believes they "lose" in the new model, or that they don't receive their fair share compared to other stake holders.
Part of the proposal aims at increasing market adoption, and from all those pages of posts I do believe most of the people agree that simplifying the BTS DAC to one point of entry, and avoiding competing -for ressources and market shares- with ourself is a really good idea.
Dilution is still a litigious point. Some are for, others are against it. I also understand where those who are against it come frome. Giving Bitshares the ability to dilute for funding directed to market share increase (and thus, an increase in shareholders value) shouldn't be seen as bad, as again it's only giving Bitshares the necessary tools to survive in the long run against REAL competition.
So now, I'll get to the point.
Instead of panicking and threatening to jump ship (and some people jumped ship anyway), why don't people take time to see the proposal as it is, instead of saying: "Well, I won't be compensated enough compared to others and I will "lose" if that proposal is passed"??
The objective of this proposal is for Bitshares to SURVIVE and PROSPER in a ruthless and unforgiving world, which in turn will benefit any and all shareholders in the long run. The details of who gets what should be discussed, yes, but why when I'm looking at all the forum posts I get the feeling that some people are "missing" the point that this is a HUGE turning point? They worry about what will be their short term benefits and how they are unfairly treated compared to other stake holders instead of focusing on the fact that the core idea in this proposal is in everybody's best interest? (Or at least aims to be)
This attitude just isn't constructive at this point in time. Those not patient enough to read through all the posts to make their own idea only get a negative vibe, as those not satisfied are always speaking the loudest.
I still see discussions about the details as something constructive, but I really, really dislike the "It's not fair" attitude. I would much prefer to see "good idea, we'll all get rich in the long run. Now how should we split the spoils to make everybody happy?"
*Disclaimer: I'm a post Feb. 28 AGS and PTS investor and relatively recent BTSX investor.
-
I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS. I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.
I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS? Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?
AGS/PTS value comes from all future DACs. If these future dacs are now to be a division of bst(x) then we are TRANSFERING the value that used to belong to PTS/AGS. Therefore they will be useless and have no value. Bts(x) will need to compensate the AGE,PTS holders with new BTS<- this is where the value was transferred to.
What is stated above relates to dacs launched by I3/the bitshares team. Third parties can still use the bitshares tool kit and pay a percentage to (now) all BTS(x) holders
This makes good sense James212 as i3 are large PTS/AGS holders they will also receive extra development funds and there is then no need for any dilution/share issuing.
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.
-
Even though parts of the marketing cannot be divulged... If the majority of this proposal of one BTS largely goes through,
Is it possible to get an ETA on when the BitAsset marketing & some related announcements may start?
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.
Excellent, that makes lot of sense.
-
I honestly dislike the general panicking mood around BM's proposal.
As it was mentionned before, survival of the fittest is the name of the game in those new and unchartered territories. Being agile and able to react/adapt quickly is definitely an edge, but I do also understand those reluctant to change, since change is always a source of uncertainties. And uncertainty equals a price drop, because the speculators are off to a new and more promising opportunity for a quick buck.
And there's also those who believes they "lose" in the new model, or that they don't receive their fair share compared to other stake holders.
Part of the proposal aims at increasing market adoption, and from all those pages of posts I do believe most of the people agree that simplifying the BTS DAC to one point of entry, and avoiding competing -for ressources and market shares- with ourself is a really good idea.
Dilution is still a litigious point. Some are for, others are against it. I also understand where those who are against it come frome. Giving Bitshares the ability to dilute for funding directed to market share increase (and thus, an increase in shareholders value) shouldn't be seen as bad, as again it's only giving Bitshares the necessary tools to survive in the long run against REAL competition.
So now, I'll get to the point.
Instead of panicking and threatening to jump ship (and some people jumped ship anyway), why don't people take time to see the proposal as it is, instead of saying: "Well, I won't be compensated enough compared to others and I will "lose" if that proposal is passed"??
The objective of this proposal is for Bitshares to SURVIVE and PROSPER in a ruthless and unforgiving world, which in turn will benefit any and all shareholders in the long run. The details of who gets what should be discussed, yes, but why when I'm looking at all the forum posts I get the feeling that some people are "missing" the point that this is a HUGE turning point? They worry about what will be their short term benefits and how they are unfairly treated compared to other stake holders instead of focusing on the fact that the core idea in this proposal is in everybody's best interest? (Or at least aims to be)
This attitude just isn't constructive at this point in time. Those not patient enough to read through all the posts to make their own idea only get a negative vibe, as those not satisfied are always speaking the loudest.
I still see discussions about the details as something constructive, but I really, really dislike the "It's not fair" attitude. I would much prefer to see "good idea, we'll all get rich in the long run. Now how should we split the spoils to make everybody happy?"
*Disclaimer: I'm a post Feb. 28 AGS and PTS investor and relatively recent BTSX investor.
+5% +5%. ....well said!
-
I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS. I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.
I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS? Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?
AGS/PTS value comes from all future DACs. If these future dacs are now to be a division of bst(x) then we are TRANSFERING the value that used to belong to PTS/AGS. Therefore they will be useless and have no value. Bts(x) will need to compensate the AGE,PTS holders with new BTS<- this is where the value was transferred to.
What is stated above relates to dacs launched by I3/the bitshares team. Third parties can still use the bitshares tool kit and pay a percentage to (now) all BTS(x) holders
This makes good sense James212 as i3 are large PTS/AGS holders they will also receive extra development funds and there is then no need for any dilution/share issuing.
My understanding is that there will in fact be funds made available to the new BTS resulting from the merger with PTS/AGS, However the issue of financing will still me on the table. Structuring BTS so that it can issue value when needed will allow it to monitize its efforts and ideas much,much more effectively. That is why BM says the BTS(X) will grow much more slowly without the ability to raise capital, and growing too slowly could very well be the death nail for BTS(X). Remember this is a race to gather network effect. Network effect is 90% of the determining factor for who will succeed and it is a zero sum game!
-
So excited! Let's supercharge BM and the development teams, bring them all in together working towards and focused on the super DAC! Boom!
If we've been building rockets.....every stage (innovation) so far has moved us closer to lift off. What an incredible year, so many accomplishments.
Now we have a chance to prove BM's consensus modelling and implementation whilst maintaining transparency and integrity. Imagine how valuable the market will find a crypto company that has a track record of effectively navigating these dangerous early waters and adapting fluidly in order to improve itself?!
Let's try not to quibble over allocations please.....let's just get moving on it! This community is awesome, within 48hrs, the spectrum of emotion and the passion is incredible....now we need to back each other, trust BM and Stan and hold the line.
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.
This is in no way fair for many reasons:
1st You force all PTS holders to sell at current prices.
2nd Price is manipulative and you could significantly increase it.
3rd You will break the 10/10/80 initial promise.
Maybe there is no "fair" solution but there should be something "fair enough" ?
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.
Not really. If you don't give PTS a set % to value. People would just spike the likely thin PTS sell wall before snapshot to maximise BTS equity. PTS could end up having a temporary CAP of $20 million and get 33% of BTS equity.
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.
Not really. If you don't give PTS a set % to value. People would just spike the likely thin PTS sell wall before snapshot to maximise BTS equity. PTS could end up having a temporary CAP of $20 million and get 33% of BTS equity.
The value they had at the time of this proposal posting could be used?
-
I don't know where we're up to but wonder whether all this suggests that bitUSD purchases and shorting will be suspended for the short period of actioning change? Otherwise the obvious purchase of bitUSD+ might leave holders of BTSX at a disadvantage?
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.
Not really. If you don't give PTS a set % to value. People would just spike the likely thin PTS sell wall before snapshot to maximise BTS equity. PTS could end up having a temporary CAP of $20 million and get 33% of BTS equity.
The value they had at the time of this proposal posting could be used?
To make it fairer it could be used the average of the past 5 / 3 days. Or today's as both have reached bottom.
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.
Not really. If you don't give PTS a set % to value. People would just spike the likely thin PTS sell wall before snapshot to maximise BTS equity. PTS could end up having a temporary CAP of $20 million and get 33% of BTS equity.
True. It should be a "stylized" market cap. Around 5 million usd makes sense.
-
Yes. We should use an average of pts and btsx prior to the proposal.
-
I assume the AGS market cap will be the same as PTS
-
I assume the AGS market cap will be the same as PTS
Yes. No other way to measure it.
-
Any confirmation from vote team on VOTE being 'absorbed'?
-
Talking with them today
-
I assume the AGS market cap will be the same as PTS
Yes. No other way to measure it.
So this is forced buy of all PTS/AGS at fixed past prices.
This will likely lead to the situation explained here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10189.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10189.0) .
Am I correct ?
-
There is no freedom if you depend on something. Especially if it is person. However marvelous he is.
I'm selling my 100k, not because it is not profitable anymore, but because I saw how dangerous it is to be dependent on another.
Guys, please, question authority.
-
There is no freedom if you depend on something. Especially if it is person. However marvelous he is.
I'm selling my 100k, not because it is not profitable anymore, but because I saw how dangerous it is to be dependent on another.
Guys, please, question authority.
That is fair enough. Dependency on a particular person or central team is a weakness, but the network supporting it is dencentralized (DPOS) and it's an evolving system. As it evolves it should give more and more power to stakeholders to vote on features/changes, and be less dependant on the direction of one leader (BM). Given more time BTS should become strong enough, with its fingers in multiple industries, to survive leadership changes and become a "true" DAC. It will grow in multiple directions with different teams around the world working on different features, if the delegates, as chosen by the stakeholders, approve their inclusion. This combining means the rocket is well fuelled for launch and able to enter a stable orbit, where it's flight path is self-sustaining.
Even bitcoin was completely dependant on the core devs while it was being developed, and it can't evolve to survive anywhere near as well as BTS can.
Best of luck.
-
I have some concerns for the superdac...
let's say in 3 months the superdac is 5 dacs merged, for example:
super dac=vote+x+dns+play+insurance
so
super dac's value (market cap) = vote+x+dns+play+insurance value (market caps combined)
let's assume your efforts and the funds you spent for the super dac has this priority’s on developing the internal "futures":
40% efforts/time/funds to vote futures
20% efforts/time/funds to X futures
20% efforts/time/funds to music futures
15% efforts/time/funds to dns futures
5% effort/time/funds to insurance futures
and I am a NEW potential investor and I want to invest on the bts superdac only because I think that the killer application/dac is the dns that is included there and in reality I
think that the other ones have no big potential.
Why should I invest $100 when I know that only $15 will go to the dns part of the project/superdac?
Is it possible for a new investor to "choose" somehow where the majority of his fund will go? Or will it depended only from the dev team?
Have you think about an option for example when somebody invest's on the superdac (with bts) that he can the same time vote where he wants the majority of his funds to go?
Imagine every bts holder can vote with his bts power where they want the devs to give more time/efforts/funds...
so if the majority of investors for example thinks the devs must give priority to the music integrated dac and secondly to the vote integrated dac they should be some how confident that gonna happen and it's not the exclusivity of bytemaster or toast or who ever decision .... ;)
-
I have some concerns for the superdac...
let's say in 3 months the superdac is 5 dacs merged, for example:
super dac=vote+x+dns+play+insurance
so
super dac's value (market cap) = vote+x+dns+play+insurance value (market caps combined)
let's assume your efforts and the funds you spent for the super dac has this priority’s on developing the internal "futures":
40% efforts/time/funds to vote futures
20% efforts/time/funds to X futures
20% efforts/time/funds to music futures
15% efforts/time/funds to dns futures
5% effort/time/funds to insurance futures
and I am a NEW potential investor and I want to invest on the bts superdac only because I think that the killer application/dac is the dns that is included there and in reality I
think that the other ones have no big potential.
Why should I invest $100 when I know that only $15 will go to the dns part of the project?
Is it possible for a new investor to "choose" somehow where the majority of his fund will go? Or will it depended only from the dev team?
Have you think about an option for example when somebody invest's on the superdac (with bts) that he can the same time vote where he wants the majority of his funds to go?
Imagine every bts holder can vote with his bts power where they want the devs to give more time/efforts/funds...
so if the majority of investors for example thinks the devs must give priority to the music integrated dac and secondly to the vote integrated dac they should be some how confident that gonna happen and it's not the exclusivity of bytemaster or toast or who ever decision .... ;)
Voters vote on delegates... delegates direct funds. So Funds will be allocated to delegates based upon total shareholder approval.
However you are right, that not everyone will agree on the allocation of funds... and this is a weakness... on the other hand all systems are stronger together due to n^2
-
I have some concerns for the superdac...
let's say in 3 months the superdac is 5 dacs merged, for example:
super dac=vote+x+dns+play+insurance
so
super dac's value (market cap) = vote+x+dns+play+insurance value (market caps combined)
let's assume your efforts and the funds you spent for the super dac has this priority’s on developing the internal "futures":
40% efforts/time/funds to vote futures
20% efforts/time/funds to X futures
20% efforts/time/funds to music futures
15% efforts/time/funds to dns futures
5% effort/time/funds to insurance futures
and I am a NEW potential investor and I want to invest on the bts superdac only because I think that the killer application/dac is the dns that is included there and in reality I
think that the other ones have no big potential.
Why should I invest $100 when I know that only $15 will go to the dns part of the project?
Is it possible for a new investor to "choose" somehow where the majority of his fund will go? Or will it depended only from the dev team?
Have you think about an option for example when somebody invest's on the superdac (with bts) that he can the same time vote where he wants the majority of his funds to go?
Imagine every bts holder can vote with his bts power where they want the devs to give more time/efforts/funds...
so if the majority of investors for example thinks the devs must give priority to the music integrated dac and secondly to the vote integrated dac they should be some how confident that gonna happen and it's not the exclusivity of bytemaster or toast or who ever decision .... ;)
Voters vote on delegates... delegates direct funds. So Funds will be allocated to delegates based upon total shareholder approval.
However you are right, that not everyone will agree on the allocation of funds... and this is a weakness... on the other hand all systems are stronger together due to n^2
I would also like to point out that there is a lot of infrastructure common to all of those different DAC industries that has yet to be developed (and one can even argue yet to be successfully funded). By pooling stake together into BTS we make everyone pay for the common infrastructure instead of letting some DACs free ride off the dilution of investment in other DACs.
I'm talking about common infrastructure like:
- User-friendly multisig and cold storage
- Lightweight clients
- Mobile and browser clients
- Better systems for shareholders to reach consensus on DAC decisions (and even better ways for clients to determine delegate slates to vote for)
- Reputation/Web-of-trust/KeyID functionality
- Consumer/merchant marketing and education on BitAssets and their desirability
- Creating a more regulatory-friendly environment for exchanges, on-ramps, and off-ramps in various important jurisdictions
- Turing complete scripts and smart contracts
-
Talking with them today
So stoked to get them on board!!!!!
This will be the beginning of an exponential increase in crypto development. Once our funding model ramps up we will have all the smartest people in the space working together to create the ultimate product. It will be absurdly powerful.
-
Why not focus exclusively on BitAssets? I've always lived by the pareto principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) (aka 80/20 rule: 80% of results come from 20% of efforts). Bytemasters idea of market pegged assets were the reason this whole thing started in the first place. Somewhere along the line, everyone got waaayyyy ahead of themselves and started fantasizing about DNS, voting, gaming, insurance, music, before fully fleshing out the original idea... Since BitAssets probably have the greatest value proposition by FAR and the greatest chance at succeeding, why not focus exclusively on that innovation first? Google search launched in 1997 and they didn't start launching other products until early 2001. Google timeline (http://www.google.com/about/company/history/). Focus on your bread and butter...
-
Why not focus exclusively on BitAssets? I've always lived by the pareto principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) (aka 80/20 rule: 80% of results come from 20% of efforts). Bytemasters idea of market pegged assets were the reason this whole thing started in the first place. Somewhere along the line, everyone got waaayyyy ahead of themselves and started fantasizing about DNS, voting, gaming, insurance, music, before fully fleshing out the original idea... Since BitAssets probably have the greatest value proposition by FAR and the greatest chance at succeeding, why not focus exclusively on that innovation first? Google search launched in 1997 and they didn't start launching other products until early 2001. Google timeline (http://www.google.com/about/company/history/). Focus on your bread and butter...
Perhaps because Bitassets seem less exciting as they are less ambitious. Perhaps because of the potential network effect that might follow with PeerTracks and Vote etc. Engaging a wide audience is important relative to the first mover advantage. It's perhaps hard to do everything well but it's equally hard to predict which elements will go large. Also the community of ideas progressing is a huge asset in itself.. it's a statement of confidence. That there is so much variety, coupled with the actioning of PTS/AGS is what has been so exciting about BitShares.
-
Why not focus exclusively on BitAssets? I've always lived by the pareto principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) (aka 80/20 rule: 80% of results come from 20% of efforts). Bytemasters idea of market pegged assets were the reason this whole thing started in the first place. Somewhere along the line, everyone got waaayyyy ahead of themselves and started fantasizing about DNS, voting, gaming, insurance, music, before fully fleshing out the original idea... Since BitAssets probably have the greatest value proposition by FAR and the greatest chance at succeeding, why not focus exclusively on that innovation first? Google search launched in 1997 and they didn't start launching other products until early 2001. Google timeline (http://www.google.com/about/company/history/). Focus on your bread and butter...
Perhaps because Bitassets seem less exciting as they are less ambitious. Perhaps because of the potential network effect that might follow with PeerTracks and Vote etc. Engaging a wide audience is important relative to the first mover advantage. It's perhaps hard to do everything well but it's equally hard to predict which elements will go large. Also the community of ideas progressing is a huge asset in itself.. it's a statement of confidence. That there is so much variety, coupled with the actioning of PTS/AGS is what has been so exciting about BitShares.
The problem with this reasoning is it doesn't prioritize intellectual and financial capital. Both are scarce resources and must be allocated efficiently. In my experience, focusing on multiple things always, without exception, results in everything failing.
-
Because the barrier of entry is a lot lower for a competitor. Google search algorithm was secret so it was harder for someone to just copy. That gave more time to perfect it and branch out.
-
Voters vote on delegates... delegates direct funds. So Funds will be allocated to delegates based upon total shareholder approval.
However you are right, that not everyone will agree on the allocation of funds... and this is a weakness... on the other hand all systems are stronger together due to n^2
If that's a weakness, then it is a weakness of even the best governance structures. Get a roomful of human beings together and there's no way they agree on everything; we wouldn't be human if we were programmed to agree all the time. The most democratic systems provide for majority rule; it's the only way to get things done. Protection of minority rights and opportunity to let everyone participate is about the best you can do to honor those who don't agree with the majority's decision.
-
..In my experience, focusing on multiple things always, without exception, results in everything failing.
Indeed, it's a question of how many devs there are focused on what. If there are more devs because there is more going on here that interests them, then that is equally a resource that then helps support intellectual and financial capital.
-
It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.
Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or.............. It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.
Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.
Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.
Not really. If you don't give PTS a set % to value. People would just spike the likely thin PTS sell wall before snapshot to maximise BTS equity. PTS could end up having a temporary CAP of $20 million and get 33% of BTS equity.
The value they had at the time of this proposal posting could be used?
I would have avoided this situation. (Or have done a DPOS crypto-currency constitution enshrined hard cap fork (Athena Coin) for the non-dilutionists, particularly the Chinese market.) But my approach to the current scenario...
(Disclosure: 0 PTS, AGS & BTSX about equal % with most AGS purchased after Feb 28th.)
I would put forward a resolution that includes 3 elements
1. Add dilution to BitShares X
2. Drop the X
3. Option to add more features besides BitAssets (Insurance, gaming, DNS, Vote etc.)
While losing some non-dilutionists, BTSX shareholders are free to do and agree to that independently of the BitShares ecosystem via delegate approval. I would get that in place first.
-
Wow, I haven't checked on the forums in a while and... what a train wreck. Here are the main issues with this proposal:
1) There is no fair method of consolidating multiple blockchains. At best, 50% will lose and 50% will gain.
2) Further to #1, emski is right about this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10189.0
3) AGS received a much larger allocation of DACs per dollar invested precisely because they are "locked" into the Bitshares ecosystem. Making them liquid after the fact is unfair. It essentially gives AGS holders all of the benefits of PTS without any of the downside. Here is the "company" analogy we like to use so much: The Bitshares Corporation gives investors a choice between buying one of two corporate bonds, A and B. Bond A is perpetual and bond B is convertible. For this reason, A has a much higher yield than B. After the bonds are issued, the company turns around and says "just kidding," A is now also a convertible bond, though it keeps the higher yield. Just something to think about.
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
-
Wow, I haven't checked on the forums in a while and... what a train wreck. Here are the main issues with this proposal:
1) There is no fair method of consolidating multiple blockchains. At best, 50% will lose and 50% will gain.
2) Further to #1, emski is right about this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10189.0
3) AGS received a much larger allocation of DACs per dollar invested precisely because they are "locked" into the Bitshares ecosystem. Making them liquid after the fact is unfair. It essentially gives AGS holders all of the benefits of PTS without any of the downside. Here is the "company" analogy we like to use so much: The Bitshares Corporation gives investors a choice between buying one of two corporate bonds, A and B. Bond A is perpetual and bond B is convertible. For this reason, A has a much higher yield than B. After the bonds are issued, the company turns around and says "just kidding," A is now also a convertible bond, though it keeps the higher yield. Just something to think about.
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
And I didn't even enter this into calculations at all.
-
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?
-
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?
Yes, it is possible, though different than merged mining in the PoW sense. One potential solution for determining burn rate is to allow each user to vote for the following options:
1) merged mining with BTSX with a preferred burn rate
2) non-merged mining (regular voting for delegates)
The system then takes the preferred burn rates of ALL merged mining votes and calculates an average burn rate, which is paid to all BTSX delegates who choose to merge mine the DAC. It is true that bandwidth constraints would limit each delegate to merge mining a limited number of DACs, but that will sustain the Bitshares ecosystem until separate chains are justified (we will probably not have more than a handful viable DACs for near term).
-
3) AGS received a much larger allocation of DACs per dollar invested precisely because they are "locked" into the Bitshares ecosystem. Making them liquid after the fact is unfair. It essentially gives AGS holders all of the benefits of PTS without any of the downside. Here is the "company" analogy we like to use so much: The Bitshares Corporation gives investors a choice between buying one of two corporate bonds, A and B. Bond A is perpetual and bond B is convertible. For this reason, A has a much higher yield than B. After the bonds are issued, the company turns around and says "just kidding," A is now also a convertible bond, though it keeps the higher yield. Just something to think about.
I propose another analogy. AGS/PTS still exist and the social contract is in place. I3 decides they want to create a super-DAC (lets call it BTSO for BitShares Other) that will include all future ideas that they were planning on crediting AGS/PTS with. They could give 10% to AGS and 10% to PTS, but instead they decide to be generous and give 50% to AGS and 50% to PTS (just like BTSX). Remember, the social contract said any fork in the same industry must snapshot off the blockchain in that industry. Forks of BitShares X to include interest were planned to fork off BTSX not AGS/PTS. Similarly, future spin-offs of the industries in BitShares Other credit BTSO not AGS/PTS. Because of this and because I3 would have decided BTSO will be for ALL future ideas they come up with, it means AGS and PTS would then likely be worthless. They still exist, but no would bother mining or trading PTS anymore.
So then, BTSX, BTSO, DNS, VOTE, and NOTE exist (AGS/PTS also exist but are worthless so we can ignore them). The social consensus at that point is that industries in a bank and exchange snapshot off BTSX; industries in domain names snapshot off DNS, industries in music snapshot off NOTE; industries in voting snapshot off VOTE; and, industries in everything else snapshot off BTSO. These are all separate DACs that will be at worse directly competing with each other or at best spreading the focus and energy of I3 too thin. It is completely fair game for any one of these DACs to out-compete the others and kill them all off. Those decisions on the future direction of the DACs are no longer in the hands of I3 but rather the shareholders of each DAC. The proposal is that we now want to consolidate some of these industries together because it is less confusing for investors and we are stronger together than when competing with each other. What is the fairest way of doing this? I don't know. In some sense it doesn't really matter. What matters is what is the best way of doing it which gives the resulting super-DAC the best chance for survival, because that is all that matters in the ruthless business world. In my opinion, bytemaster's proposal seemed pretty fair to all parties, and more importantly it seemed like a proposal that would lead to the most unification possible in our community and the least amount of pissed-off people who dump their stake in anger. Maybe there is a better merger strategy that more of us will agree to (we will never be able to please everyone). What I am confident about is that we have a much better chance of surviving against outside competitors, who will eventually come to their senses and decide to clone the BitShares toolkit, if we unite together into one DAC, at least in these early growth stages.
-
Amencon, mat608 and mf-tzo, would you be prepared to also repeat your points on some of these mumble-hangouts with Bytemaster?
You all touch on some very valid concerns and I would like to have your perspectives be part of those real-time discussion as well. Especially since some of you feel that I did not do a good enough job defending the multiple separate chain idea.
I admit that I now favor the idea of having separate DACs be developed more independently from the bitshares team, because I think having only Dacs developed by the bitshares team would be just as bad as having a single blockchain. So my expectation of the future is now that trying to help bitshares reach more success in the short term, will boost adoption rate of separate blockchains and (D)Pos by others more, than having a crippled small team try and create a complete ecosystem from day one, complete with competitors. I'm noticing that some famous people in the industry are looking into Pos now as well, whereas they were completely opposed to the concept not too long ago.
Also on the topic of changing course and being inconsistent, I don't completely agree with that point of view. It does not account for this being a completely new experiment, with no definitive answers. Do keep in mind that bitUsd was not a finalized or even as trusted a concept as it is now. Also because of the idea of the bitUsd mechanic of btsx being part of most of the DACs planned by bitshares in the future, which was not part of the perceived reality when the plan was to create these separate selfsufficient blockchains, the situation did change from that time and it does make sense to reevaluate the path with this new development. What path is chosen should indeed be left to the individual stakeholders and what they believe is the best road forward.
Would be nice if people talked and ask questions first before panicking and selling before anything is even close to being decided. For one the details on how the percentage stakes would be divided has not even come up.
I have no problem continuing the discussion, I've also not sold anything yet as I'm not in this for the short term speculating. I will wait to see how this all plays out before readjusting my levels of investment.
I wouldn't be against joining some sort of Mumble session, unfortunately I work full time, overtime and side jobs. Emails, forums and texts are the best kinds of communication mediums for me as it allows me to multitask, however if there was a Mumble during time I was free I would jump on.
-
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?
Yes, it is possible, though different than merged mining in the PoW sense. One potential solution for determining burn rate is to allow each user to vote for the following options:
1) merged mining with BTSX with a preferred burn rate
2) non-merged mining (regular voting for delegates)
The system then takes the preferred burn rates of ALL merged mining votes and calculates an average burn rate, which is paid to all BTSX delegates who choose to merge mine the DAC. It is true that bandwidth constraints would limit each delegate to merge mining a limited number of DACs, but that will sustain the Bitshares ecosystem until separate chains are justified (we will probably not have more than a handful viable DACs for near term).
I should clarify that "merged mining" is far less efficient than using user-issued assets, but may allow for an easier transition to non-merged mining (ie, without a hard fork / protocol change). I haven't thought through all of the implications but I was thinking of sort of a compromise between full consolidation and being completely disjoint.
-
@amencon
you obviously didn't read the Vote DAC thread if you think the community has nothing to do with this decision.
Maybe not closely enough, but from what I saw the community reaction was due to poor message delivery from BM. Then to counter-act overreaction from the BTSX heavy investors, this proposal was rolled out, further intensifying the confusion originally created from the Vote DAC thread.
The community doesn't know why BM was excited by Vote DAC and so weren't in a position to judge whether or not it actually was a threat to BTSX investments. Now the community still doesn't know all the plans at I3 HQ and really aren't in a position to judge how necessary this new course reversal is.
At this point you just have to trust I3 is doing the right thing and hope for the best. Majority of shareholders are going to go with BM's suggestions nearly regardless of what they are (there are enough here that regard him as a "thought leader" and actively encourage others to follow him blindly) and in the end they may not be wrong to do so.
Eyes closed, fingers crossed.
-
3) AGS received a much larger allocation of DACs per dollar invested precisely because they are "locked" into the Bitshares ecosystem. Making them liquid after the fact is unfair. It essentially gives AGS holders all of the benefits of PTS without any of the downside. Here is the "company" analogy we like to use so much: The Bitshares Corporation gives investors a choice between buying one of two corporate bonds, A and B. Bond A is perpetual and bond B is convertible. For this reason, A has a much higher yield than B. After the bonds are issued, the company turns around and says "just kidding," A is now also a convertible bond, though it keeps the higher yield. Just something to think about.
I propose another analogy. AGS/PTS still exist and the social contract is in place. I3 decides they want to create a super-DAC (lets call it BTSO for BitShares Other) that will include all future ideas that they were planning on crediting AGS/PTS with. They could give 10% to AGS and 10% to PTS, but instead they decide to be generous and give 50% to AGS and 50% to PTS (just like BTSX). Remember, the social contract said any fork in the same industry must snapshot off the blockchain in that industry. Forks of BitShares X to include interest were planned to fork off BTSX not AGS/PTS. Similarly, future spin-offs of the industries in BitShares Other credit BTSO not AGS/PTS. Because of this and because I3 would have decided BTSO will be for ALL future ideas they come up with, it means AGS and PTS would then likely be worthless. They still exist, but no would bother mining or trading PTS anymore.
So then, BTSX, BTSO, DNS, VOTE, and NOTE exist (AGS/PTS also exist but are worthless so we can ignore them). The social consensus at that point is that industries in a bank and exchange snapshot off BTSX; industries in domain names snapshot off DNS, industries in music snapshot off NOTE; industries in voting snapshot off VOTE; and, industries in everything else snapshot off BTSO. These are all separate DACs that will be at worse directly competing with each other or at best spreading the focus and energy of I3 too thin. It is completely fair game for any one of these DACs to out-compete the others and kill them all off. Those decisions on the future direction of the DACs are no longer in the hands of I3 but rather the shareholders of each DAC. The proposal is that we now want to consolidate some of these industries together because it is less confusing for investors and we are stronger together than when competing with each other. What is the fairest way of doing this? I don't know. In some sense it doesn't really matter. What matters is what is the best way of doing it which gives the resulting super-DAC the best chance for survival, because that is all that matters in the ruthless business world. In my opinion, bytemaster's proposal seemed pretty fair to all parties, and more importantly it seemed like a proposal that would lead to the most unification possible in our community and the least amount of pissed-off people who dump their stake in anger. Maybe there is a better merger strategy that more of us will agree to (we will never be able to please everyone). What I am confident about is that we have a much better chance of surviving against outside competitors, who will eventually come to their senses and decide to clone the BitShares toolkit, if we unite together into one DAC, at least in these early growth stages.
Seems less risky than crypto equity m&a. +1. However either proposal works for me as long as we end up with a mothership DAC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
we discussed the "merged-mining" proposal in the hangout yesterday .. and IMHO would should go the other way round and focus all power in one blockchain .. and gather speed ...
once the market can stand on it's own .. the blockchain features can be "spinned off" the main business and be run on a separated chain using the same assets/delegates .. but different chain/feature set ..
-
Seems less risky than crypto equity m&a. +1. However either proposal works for me as long as we end up with a mothership DAC
Hmm, I think you may have misunderstood. My post was essentially equivalent to bytemaster's proposal, just another way of looking at the same thing. Or maybe I misunderstood what your position was?
-
Seems less risky than crypto equity m&a. +1. However either proposal works for me as long as we end up with a mothership DAC
Hmm, I think you may have misunderstood. My post was essentially equivalent to bytemaster's proposal, just another way of looking at the same thing. Or maybe I misunderstood what your position was?
Right, I think we both understand that it's all about how this "seems" and we're on he same page really
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
After listening to the last dev hangout and the mumble, I definitely like the new proposal. This multi-DAC thing is insanely exciting to me. Getting rid of POW and clarifying the product is perfect. The only problem is that the end of AGS/PTS will be unfair to somebody, but the positive effects should be worth the pain.
-
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?
Yes, it is possible, though different than merged mining in the PoW sense. One potential solution for determining burn rate is to allow each user to vote for the following options:
1) merged mining with BTSX with a preferred burn rate
2) non-merged mining (regular voting for delegates)
The system then takes the preferred burn rates of ALL merged mining votes and calculates an average burn rate, which is paid to all BTSX delegates who choose to merge mine the DAC. It is true that bandwidth constraints would limit each delegate to merge mining a limited number of DACs, but that will sustain the Bitshares ecosystem until separate chains are justified (we will probably not have more than a handful viable DACs for near term).
I have always wondered if it would be possible to potentially have one delegate that effectively works for multiple chains at once--this would cost substantially less and significantly increase the value proposition for delegates...
-
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?
Yes, it is possible, though different than merged mining in the PoW sense. One potential solution for determining burn rate is to allow each user to vote for the following options:
1) merged mining with BTSX with a preferred burn rate
2) non-merged mining (regular voting for delegates)
The system then takes the preferred burn rates of ALL merged mining votes and calculates an average burn rate, which is paid to all BTSX delegates who choose to merge mine the DAC. It is true that bandwidth constraints would limit each delegate to merge mining a limited number of DACs, but that will sustain the Bitshares ecosystem until separate chains are justified (we will probably not have more than a handful viable DACs for near term).
I have always wondered if it would be possible to potentially have one delegate that effectively works for multiple chains at once--this would cost substantially less and significantly increase the value proposition for delegates...
+5% From my understanding, the reason sidechains don't really work for Bitcoin is that the PoW sidechains can still be attacked by the biggest chain. So it's not an ideal solution. Sidechains would work much better for DPOS.
-
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?
Yes, it is possible, though different than merged mining in the PoW sense. One potential solution for determining burn rate is to allow each user to vote for the following options:
1) merged mining with BTSX with a preferred burn rate
2) non-merged mining (regular voting for delegates)
The system then takes the preferred burn rates of ALL merged mining votes and calculates an average burn rate, which is paid to all BTSX delegates who choose to merge mine the DAC. It is true that bandwidth constraints would limit each delegate to merge mining a limited number of DACs, but that will sustain the Bitshares ecosystem until separate chains are justified (we will probably not have more than a handful viable DACs for near term).
I have always wondered if it would be possible to potentially have one delegate that effectively works for multiple chains at once--this would cost substantially less and significantly increase the value proposition for delegates...
This was answered during the last emergency mumble session... sorry you could not attend. :)
The answer is, and expectedly so - Yes!
-
from my point of view peertracks wants to uproot bitshares as bank. It seems unwieldy for them to embark on the path of creating a new bitUSD backed by their own company stock, unless, they think they can leave bitshares bitUSD behind in the dust. for them to beat bitshares bitUSD, the first step is to have a well capitalized stock so that many bitUSD can be shorted. And second to have superior incentive to buy their bitUSD. peertracks looks capable to meet both these criteria.
has it been considered for a DAC like music or vote or DNS, which may want to have a dollar token for unit of exchange, instead to printing new bitUSD against their newbie stock, to instead accept payment in user-issued bitUSD IOUS?
It's the same concept of bitstamp taking dollar deposits and issuing IOUS on the ripple ledger. this is transferring the dollar from the bank ledger to ripple ledger. A bitUSD/peertrack gateway would take deposits in bitshares bitUSD, issue IOUS on peertracks and correspondingly redeem / destroy those IOUS.
any BitUSD on a separate chain is a competing currency with bitshares bitUSD. we need to convince DACS to user our bitUSD not to create their own.
-
we discussed the "merged-mining" proposal in the hangout yesterday .. and IMHO would should go the other way round and focus all power in one blockchain .. and gather speed ...
once the market can stand on it's own .. the blockchain features can be "spinned off" the main business and be run on a separated chain using the same assets/delegates .. but different chain/feature set ..
Xeroc can you explain to me why a couple weeks ago the company line was that some secret marketing plus a bitUSD debit card was poised to rocket BTSX above all our wildest expectations, but now all of a sudden the chains need to be consolidated in order to "stand on it's own"?
Were they wrong before or is it bullshit now?
I don't mean to sound combative, I respect you, your opinion and all you've done for this venture thus far. It is a genuine question.
Thanks buddy.
-
from my point of view peertracks wants to uproot bitshares as bank. It seems unwieldy for them to embark on the path of creating a new bitUSD backed by their own company stock, unless, they think they can leave bitshares bitUSD behind in the dust. for them to beat bitshares bitUSD, the first step is to have a well capitalized stock so that many bitUSD can be shorted. And second to have superior incentive to buy their bitUSD. peertracks looks capable to meet both these criteria.
has it been considered for a DAC like music or vote or DNS, which may want to have a dollar token for unit of exchange, instead to printing new bitUSD against their newbie stock, to instead accept payment in user-issued bitUSD IOUS?
It's the same concept of bitstamp taking dollar deposits and issuing IOUS on the ripple ledger. this is transferring the dollar from the bank ledger to ripple ledger. A bitUSD/peertrack gateway would take deposits in bitshares bitUSD, issue IOUS on peertracks and correspondingly redeem / destroy those IOUS.
any BitUSD on a separate chain is a competing currency with bitshares bitUSD. we need to convince DACS to user our bitUSD not to create their own.
Yes peertracks or Vote are BitAsset threats. You can't convince them because they gain a lot of value when people buy BitUSD backed by their own stock.
This is one of the reasons BM wants a superDAC I believe, - to bootstrap one main BitShares BitUSD then other DACs will only have MusicUSD etc. which won't have a lot of functionality outside their system. If we really bootstrap then other DACs will have to accept BitUSD because that is what most of the market is using.
If you want a BitShares DAC to win the race, we can't compete for network effect amongst ourselves or compete for BM's attention. Hence the need for one SuperDAC. Also if we make the SuperDAC then we own 'BitUSD' no-one else can say they have 'BitUSD' as it's not fungible with ours, they have to have MusicUSD etc.
-
I think all of those "secret" sauces including the new vote "secret sauce" and the credit union/debit card idea is still plausible however as we got closer to final a working solution and putting more thought into it I believed it clicked in the dev's heads that it will make it more effective if we pool all the resources into one rocket and let it try to reach space (network affect)... so that an even more profound result can be seem on your price chart.
One thing I have about the dilution is that... if you are diluting btsx (and I didn't read all of the threads so I may be misinterpreting) to merge&acquire the other dacs, wouldn't it favour the other dacs like in traditional m&a with equities... the newly acquired stock is bought because it will be averaged into the bigger stock marketcap... and the bigger stock is sold off. So in effect after N merges into M master chain, you will have an averaging effect on price of M based on the the prices of N... and ofcourse those N prices are very low so it will benefit anyone holding N and hurt anyone holding M. Is this true?
-
Xeroc can you explain to me why a couple weeks ago the company line was that some secret marketing plus a bitUSD debit card was poised to rocket BTSX above all our wildest expectations, but now all of a sudden the chains need to be consolidated in order to "stand on it's own"?
Were they wrong before or is it bullshit now?
I don't mean to sound combative, I respect you, your opinion and all you've done for this venture thus far. It is a genuine question.
Thanks buddy.
AFAIK the 'big marketing' push will still be solely for BTSX ... and thus far nothing changed ...
however, it seems that the features of VOTE are superior to the features of BTSX in such a way that the market cap of VOTE could rise faster and higher then the cap of BTSX ... which is pure speculation .. so far almost nothing is known about VOTE (except that it might be turing complete)
people went crazy because of the uncertainty .. imho
anyway .. with the most recent changes .. all of the above is obsolete (in my post)
-
Yup people are scared of uncertainty... usually like I said before.. smart investors are investing based on decisions and not technology... and if the decisions are good then investors will come... right now the decisions are either game-breaking or game-changing so since its either or (1 or 0) alot of people decided on a wait and see approach instead of going all in or staying all in... but like I also said before most of the decisions made thus far look good in hind-sight and and brought btsx above or at the closest competition and this could take it head and shoulders above competition if it is the right move.
Anyways I will leave it best explained by a quote by the great Arthur Schopenhauer.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Right now its in the first phase of ridiculed/opposed, but in hindsight might be self-evident (why would we have done it any other way?) style thinking.
Bitcoin itself is in the first stage (you ask a banker about bitcoin and he will ridicule it)
-
we discussed the "merged-mining" proposal in the hangout yesterday .. and IMHO would should go the other way round and focus all power in one blockchain .. and gather speed ...
once the market can stand on it's own .. the blockchain features can be "spinned off" the main business and be run on a separated chain using the same assets/delegates .. but different chain/feature set ..
Xeroc can you explain to me why a couple weeks ago the company line was that some secret marketing plus a bitUSD debit card was poised to rocket BTSX above all our wildest expectations, but now all of a sudden the chains need to be consolidated in order to "stand on it's own"?
Were they wrong before or is it bullshit now?
I don't mean to sound combative, I respect you, your opinion and all you've done for this venture thus far. It is a genuine question.
Thanks buddy.
I hear you. The lack of marketing transparency is frustrating. The lack of any marketing effort that shareholders can see is frustrating. Constantly changing plans at a whim is frustrating. Naive as it may be, I'm holding onto hope this is a step in the direction of simplicity, organization and focus. :-\
-
I havnt got round to reading through all 25 pages.
So, after snap shot PTS price can expect to drop to zero?
AGS no longer used for snap shots?
New snap shots taken from BitsharesX?
Third party DACs using bitshares tool kit must take a snap shot from BitsharesX?
DNS, music, Gaming etc running on BitsharesX blockchain?
If someone wants to invest in the future of the DACs industry they would need to buy bitsharesX shares?
Continued development on the bitshares toolkit?
-
I havnt got round to reading through all 25 pages.
So, after snap shot PTS price can expect to drop to zero?
AGS no longer used for snap shots?
New snap shots taken from BitsharesX?
Third party DACs using bitshares tool kit must take a snap shot from BitsharesX?
DNS, music, Gaming etc running on BitsharesX blockchain?
If someone wants to invest in the future of the DACs industry they would need to buy bitsharesX shares?
Continued development on the bitshares toolkit?
Yeah.. because today single point of failure is a good thing. erm...no that's wrong.. because .. oh crap I had it a moment ago.
-
Read my call to action (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10203.msg133776#msg133776), post your thoughts. The team is waiting for us to build consensus.
-
It's true.. the biggest positive will be the network effect. If one of the DACs takes off in a big way that will reduce the burden of marketing on others. If the legal liability is not an issue then go ahead.. it's the right time as it's early days but do it fast and sharp. If there is a clear intent to spin off and distribute successful DACs later on, that would be a positive, without a clear way to reduce the risk from being within the same one system, there would be questions about the single point of failure later on. Do we really want one bug to rue them all?
-
we discussed the "merged-mining" proposal in the hangout yesterday .. and IMHO would should go the other way round and focus all power in one blockchain .. and gather speed ...
once the market can stand on it's own .. the blockchain features can be "spinned off" the main business and be run on a separated chain using the same assets/delegates .. but different chain/feature set ..
Xeroc can you explain to me why a couple weeks ago the company line was that some secret marketing plus a bitUSD debit card was poised to rocket BTSX above all our wildest expectations, but now all of a sudden the chains need to be consolidated in order to "stand on it's own"?
Were they wrong before or is it bullshit now?
I don't mean to sound combative, I respect you, your opinion and all you've done for this venture thus far. It is a genuine question.
Thanks buddy.
I hear you. The lack of marketing transparency is frustrating. The lack of any marketing effort that shareholders can see is frustrating. Constantly changing plans at a whim is frustrating. Naive as it may be, I'm holding onto hope this is a step in the direction of simplicity, organization and focus. :-\
The flip side of the lack of marketing to-date... imagine trying to streamline with a broader user base.
If the devs tried to go to BTS post-market push it would have been a nightmare.
Silver linings and all that.
-
For anyone that missed it:
Coming to a theater this Halloween:
Starring Daniel Larimer as “the Bytemaster:”
THE MERGER...
focus on building everything into BTS until such a time that someone wants to clone BTS and focus on a smaller demographic and "specialize"... (and then, at that point, we divide and conquer, from the position of highest possible DPOS market cap leader)(position yourself for battle before you fight it since nobody is fighting us with DPOS yet)
If you are investing in BTSX technology because of BitAssets and what that enables.... the value is in the BitAssets which appear to be working... then this proposal is really about preventing the dilution of BitAssets on 20 different DACs leading to user confusion (my next 20 projects).
TL/DR: Become the biggest DPOS until a real competitor emerges. A real competitor is any coin that forks DPOS (because the only thing that we all can seem to agree upon 100% in unison here is that DPOS beats POW, so lets start our consensus journey from that common unanimous agreement), because until Google clones DPOS, and launches “GOG the destroyer of BTSX,” (PeerPonziD is not a true competitor) then Bytemaster's next coin will be competing directly with BTSX for venture capitalist attention. And although Dan has yet to reach La Mancha, he is making his second attempt with the acquired wisdom from all his previous DPOS launches; and in a vehicle that looks nearly identical to BTSX, because, IT IS A CLONE. And what are the mathematical odds that Michaelangelo fails to learn from his mistakes?
Know this: Dan will try his absolute hardest to create a better DAC the second time around (the same way he tried to create the best DAC the first time around).
Ah, ha. There it is..realization....The MERGER...What will they say? ….. Tune in this fall...Or next week depending on when the BitShares community wants to see their share price stabilize and rise. The BitShares community gets to choose their market cap, lets see what they choose for themselves and their families...
“What is the value for eliminating confusion in this space? (when big time marketers are holding back their collaborative efforts and funding unless we merge into or generate a consistent and simple vision)” -BM (TL/DR of mumbleserversession)
And if we cannot merge into a cohesive, simple, CENTRAL vision, then BM will have no choice but to flatter the Winklevii with his next project, the new and improved DPOS that will have a better chance to beat Bitcoin.
It's that simple. Currently, all BitShares affiliated coins are falling in value until this community reaches a simple consensus (no matter what it is). I am neutral, and will happily agree with any consensus.
Disclosure: I read the “BitShares Book of How to Get Rich in 10 Easy Steps (starting with step 1: solve the problem of coming to a consensus) (quickly, as if your kids' college fund depended on it)”:
bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4146.0
Now, young Jedi be glad that you diligently studied, practiced, and honed your survival skills by learning how to quickly and efficiently come to a community consensus because now the value of this knowledge is imminently apparent, as your competitors (the free market of nature) swarm you, sucking the money out of your market caps. As you slowly gain focus of the bigger picture, your vision now encompasses the future. Be glad that you acquired this wisdom back in April, when your market cap was not plunging simply due to your lack of ability to draw your community into a democratic consensus. Tell your children with pride how you sacrificed alongside Dan while working for a positive BitShares future. Dan was too busy developing DPOS so you helped develop the:
BITSHRES COMMUNITY QUICK CONSENSUS DERIVATION PROCESS
which ended up saving the company millions in market cap due to it's ability to achieve community consensus in the blink of an eye.
Oops, we were too busy (fill in the blank) to build any consensus derivation tools.
But don't worry, because, Dan is launching a new DAC that solves this problem that we couldn't.
And how much money is this solution worth.
Lets see, Satoshi solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, and that was worth.....
Bytemaster validated the Nash Equilibrium, and then solved this problem of consensus..
All you have to do is agree on how to slice the pie before Google snatches it away.
Wait too long, and you don't get as much.
Don't worry, though, Bitcoin will experience the same problem, and they all know it. The dreaded community civil war over a hard fork will drop their market cap too some day. That is why BitSharesVOTE (BTV) beats BTC and BTSX.
coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/
BitSharesVOTE is Dan doing for you now what you should have done for us then:
Step 1: solve (the) problem of coming to a consensus:
The fastest way for our community to reach a consensus....
List your personal favorite proposal at the end of your post so that we can see who is thinking what. It will greatly improve our communication as a group, and assist us on reaching our goal of gaining a unifying social consensus on a single concept.
That way everyone else can choose to either accept or reject individual ideas line by line. Bite sized progress. The entrepreneurs who are on the fence trying to decide weather or not they want to honor PTS/AGS holders will be able to see how quickly your personal rule set changes relative to that of the Bitshares community. We want to show entrepreneurs that we are learning, and adapting quickly. This will allow consensus to be reached in the shortest amount of time.
it is my job to actually read his post and change my proposal to reflect the consensus. I will provide effort to better the group, and if everyone provides the same effort, then we will reach a consensus in record time. if bytemaster comes over here, and he is proposing 3% instead of my 4% proposal, then I will change mine to reflect his because we all know that his ideas hold more consensus pooling power. Again, if I see that my numbers can be slightly adjusted to match the social consensus, then I will change mine to become one with the group. Maybe we will see that we all are pretty much in consensus currently?
Let's show off our collaboration skills by treating this obstacle like an exercise that will make us a more useful community (a toolkit for inventors).
If everyone knows exactly what everyone else is thinking, then we reach a consensus sooner. Then DA devs will flock here and honor your PTS/AGS.
Act like you want and deserve to get paid, and you just might.
Stay on track in this thread and steps 2-10 will be revealed later
How long will you wait?
How much time and money will you freely give to your competitors?
How much pain will you choose to inflict on yourself, your friends, and your family?
Do pay for gridlock or open your wallet to the abundance of a universe whose capacity is unimaginable?
youtube.com/watch?v=ZpJoMuuE3Eg
I choose zero seconds, what say you?
Why do you choose to have nightmares? Consciousness is deeper than our thinking mind can directly control.
It takes time to recondition our thoughts on all levels.
But I can say that I have seen smaller changes happen and we are on the verge of making huge breakthroughs on free energy and free markets. Why? Because I changed my view on the world from one where I was going to survive mad max as a farmer to one where wealth was abundant about 3 months prior to starting bitshares.
Had i held to prior beliefs the world would have gone a different direction.
The choice is yours: Fear or Love:
youtube.com/watch?v=YoB8t0B4jx4
If we don't merge BTSX and VOTE, don't you think that our competitors will?
Then good luck competing with the Voltron that we made but are fighting it with only 5 lions:
rufiojones.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/voltron1.jpg
Do you see the inevitability of the evolution of the merger?
It will happen eventually, with or without you.
So what will you take for it?
Or will you give it away?
TL/DR: Become the biggest DPOS until a real competitor emerges. A real competitor is any coin that forks DPOS (because the only thing that we all can seem to agree upon 100% in unison here is that DPOS beats POW, so lets start our consensus journey from that common unanimous agreement), because until Google clones DPOS, and launches “GOG the destroyer of BTSX,” (PeerPonziD is not a true competitor) then Bytemaster's next coin will be competing directly with BTSX for venture capitalist attention. And although Dan has yet to reach La Mancha, he is making his second attempt with the acquired wisdom from all his previous DPOS launches; and in a vehicle that looks nearly identical to BTSX, because, IT IS A CLONE. And what are the mathematical odds that Michaelangelo fails to learn from his mistakes?
Ah, ha. There it is..realization....The MERGER...What will they say? ….. Tune in this fall...Or next week depending on when the BitShares community wants to see their share price stabilize and rise. The BitShares community gets to choose their market cap, lets see what they choose for themselves and their families...
-
Has toast stopped the development of Keyid？If so and no other team will continue the work, keyid is going to die?
-
Bm, Our delegate team support you fully. Although there maybe a big lost on the value of my btsx but merge all 3 products together is the way to go for our future objective +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
Has toast stopped the development of Keyid？If so and no other team will continue the work, keyid is going to die?
DNS / keyID invested value will be preserved
-
Xeroc can you explain to me why a couple weeks ago the company line was that some secret marketing plus a bitUSD debit card was poised to rocket BTSX above all our wildest expectations, but now all of a sudden the chains need to be consolidated in order to "stand on it's own"?
Were they wrong before or is it bullshit now?
I don't mean to sound combative, I respect you, your opinion and all you've done for this venture thus far. It is a genuine question.
Thanks buddy.
AFAIK the 'big marketing' push will still be solely for BTSX ... and thus far nothing changed ...
however, it seems that the features of VOTE are superior to the features of BTSX in such a way that the market cap of VOTE could rise faster and higher then the cap of BTSX ... which is pure speculation .. so far almost nothing is known about VOTE (except that it might be turing complete)
people went crazy because of the uncertainty .. imho
anyway .. with the most recent changes .. all of the above is obsolete (in my post)
That's how I read the situation as well. If the prospects for BTSX didn't change, and BTSX was on the verge of being hugely successful then you can't really state that the chains need to merge in order to survive the marketplace, unless something changed or the original hugely positive "secret" statements were false.
Anyway I guess we are all moving on. Hopefully this new course achieves it's stated goals better than the last one did.
-
I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.
Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?
Yes, it is possible, though different than merged mining in the PoW sense. One potential solution for determining burn rate is to allow each user to vote for the following options:
1) merged mining with BTSX with a preferred burn rate
2) non-merged mining (regular voting for delegates)
The system then takes the preferred burn rates of ALL merged mining votes and calculates an average burn rate, which is paid to all BTSX delegates who choose to merge mine the DAC. It is true that bandwidth constraints would limit each delegate to merge mining a limited number of DACs, but that will sustain the Bitshares ecosystem until separate chains are justified (we will probably not have more than a handful viable DACs for near term).
I have always wondered if it would be possible to potentially have one delegate that effectively works for multiple chains at once--this would cost substantially less and significantly increase the value proposition for delegates...
+5% From my understanding, the reason sidechains don't really work for Bitcoin is that the PoW sidechains can still be attacked by the biggest chain. So it's not an ideal solution. Sidechains would work much better for DPOS.
My understanding is that, for DPOS, they also need to share common interest too.
-
Has toast stopped the development of Keyid？If so and no other team will continue the work, keyid is going to die?
DNS / keyID invested value will be preserved
Does this imply that DNS will be merged into BTS?
-
I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.
For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.
good idea.
-
I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.
For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.
good idea.
Very good idea.
-
I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.
For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.
good idea.
Yeah, interesting approach.
Very good idea.
-
We are talking too much , we need conclusions...
The community is wondering...
:)
-
I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.
For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.
good idea.
Very good idea.
I agree too
+5%
edit: do you wanted to say 35% in case of music and not 10% ?
-
I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.
For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.
good idea.
Very good idea.
I agree too
+5%
edit: do you wanted to say 35% in case of music and not 10% ?
+5%
-
I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.
For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.
good idea.
Very good idea.
I agree too
+5%
edit: do you wanted to say 35% in case of music and not 10% ?
+5%
+5%
-
I thought that would necessarily be the case anyway.
I wonder it would not be practical for DNS = NOTE = VOTE = BTSX. Those others are assets within BTS.
The risk is simply having those on one chain.. one bug could rue them all.
Then the other issue is putting PTS/AGS into BTS or put that separate.
-
I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.
For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.
good idea.
It must be so
The existing order should not be broken
Not disturb the economic interests, increase the function of BTSX is feasible
I wish merely from the technical to the product line of reform
Before don't destroy the consensus of all investment
-
I thought that would necessarily be the case anyway.
I wonder it would not be practical for DNS = NOTE = VOTE = BTSX. Those others are assets within BTS.
The risk is simply having those on one chain.. one bug could rue them all.
Then the other issue is putting PTS/AGS into BTS or put that separate.
There is risk that one bug could rue them all, but don't forget if all developers are together than it is easier to fix the bug rather than if they are separate.
-
Yes and I think it's best we defer to the devs expert view on this. If it is not simply the case that BTS sits upstream and fixes core bugs and other DACs are then downstream with their own chains and characteristics relative to BTS, then perhaps it needs to be all in one.
I'm not clear yet what intent there is for spinning off sucessful DACs later. Perhaps now if those are their own asset within BTS, then that isn't necessary and those will always be as one with BTS.
As suggested a number of times it's early days and I do not think it matters at this stage; so long as what is done is useful to the devs, that is most important.
-
I havnt got round to reading through all 25 pages.
So, after snap shot PTS price can expect to drop to zero?
AGS no longer used for snap shots?
New snap shots taken from BitsharesX?
Third party DACs using bitshares tool kit must take a snap shot from BitsharesX?
DNS, music, Gaming etc running on BitsharesX blockchain?
If someone wants to invest in the future of the DACs industry they would need to buy bitsharesX shares?
Continued development on the bitshares toolkit?
still not sure on the above, could someone answer for me please. Just YES/NO is cool
-
still not sure on the above, could someone answer for me please. Just YES/NO is cool
Yes to those points.
+
Would expect PTS would freeze up and become worthless, esp without miners for it.
Third party DACs honoring social contract has always been optional but in their interests to do so.
-
Still can't decide what will all these lead to. I am spread out across BTSX/AGS/PTS so wouldn't be too bad for me.
Anyway, the community should have listened to me when I was raising concern along with a suggestion asking it to be debated https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53219#msg53219
Its funny the responses then
changing the social contract is suicide and the devs know that very well and stated several times in this board that it will not happen!
The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.
I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.
-
Its funny the responses then
...
I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.
In fairness I think what is intended is a change of form not function.
The social contract stands, though is perhaps less obvious if drowned within BTS. I think losing the explicit interest in new DACs that PTS/AGS voiced, would be unfortunate.
-
Still can't decide what will all these lead to. I am spread out across BTSX/AGS/PTS so wouldn't be too bad for me.
Anyway, the community should have listened to me when I was raising concern along with a suggestion asking it to be debated https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53219#msg53219
Its funny the responses then
changing the social contract is suicide and the devs know that very well and stated several times in this board that it will not happen!
The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.
I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.
Remember that there is more to that proposition than just the initial distribution, which happened faithfully as stated above.
Also stated was that we were building an unmanned company guided by the metaphor of a business, not a currency.
Businesses do value infusions to grow and compete. Our biggest commitment is to grow and compete. All decisions must be viewed in the light of what maximizes shareholder value. Thus the proposal is completely consistent with that.
Semper Fi. :)
-
Remember that there is more to that proposition than just the initial distribution, which happened faithfully as stated above.
No it hasn't. I haven't claimed my stakes from genesis, just bought a lot more with my BTCs (at above the current rate I might add). So in effect I am not getting the distribution as promised.
I understand why it is happening and have to accept it (not least as I have no other option). It just every argument starts with 'BM can't serve 2 masters' when that particular issue could've been avoided.
-
Still can't decide what will all these lead to. I am spread out across BTSX/AGS/PTS so wouldn't be too bad for me.
Anyway, the community should have listened to me when I was raising concern along with a suggestion asking it to be debated https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53219#msg53219
Its funny the responses then
changing the social contract is suicide and the devs know that very well and stated several times in this board that it will not happen!
The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.
I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.
Remember that there is more to that proposition than just the initial distribution, which happened faithfully as stated above.
Also stated was that we were building an unmanned company guided by the metaphor of a business, not a currency.
Businesses do value infusions to grow and compete. Our biggest commitment is to grow and compete. All decisions must be viewed in the light of what maximizes shareholder value. Thus the proposal is completely consistent with that.
Semper Fi. :)
Stan - maximizing shareholder value is fine as long as each shareholder has the same class of shares and therefore the same representation. When you start wielding your influence to devalue one company at the expense of another you are no longer maximizing shareholder value. Making AGS liquid at the expense of everyone else and defying the social contract to "gift" one group at the expense of another is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority", NOT mutually beneficial market forces.
-
I thought that would necessarily be the case anyway.
I wonder it would not be practical for DNS = NOTE = VOTE = BTSX. Those others are assets within BTS.
The risk is simply having those on one chain.. one bug could rue them all.
Then the other issue is putting PTS/AGS into BTS or put that separate.
There is risk that one bug could rue them all, but don't forget if all developers are together than it is easier to fix the bug rather than if they are separate.
That is why we are going to have DevShares... to take that risk and prove ideas prior to being integrated into BTS.
-
oh, four in one, sounds good
i can see some days later, you, bm would announce that, we need pts2, ags2, we need more money to lift ourself.
we can see that day, it's funny.
-
oh, four in one, sounds good
i can see some days later, you, bm would announce that, we need pts2, ags2, we need more money to lift ourself.
we can see that day, it's funny.
Unlikely. But this is a business and businesses make the best decisions they can with the knowledge they have available to them at each moment. Businesses have shareholders who can fire management if they make too many bad decisions. We are setting this all up so we are all subject to that fact.
-
Stan - maximizing shareholder value is fine as long as each shareholder has the same class of shares and therefore the same representation. When you start wielding your influence to devalue one company at the expense of another you are no longer maximizing shareholder value. Making AGS liquid at the expense of everyone else and defying the social contract to "gift" one group at the expense of another is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority", NOT mutually beneficial market forces.
Under mutually beneficial market forces we would have just picked the next DAC up, designed it to be a SuperDAC, and put all the others out of business. We didn't use tyranny of the market. We didn't use tyranny of the majority. We used tyranny of the faithful and hopefully even-handed parent.
-
We used tyranny of the faithful and hopefully even-handed parent.
:o I'm sure you don't intend to suggest we are children..
but still it would have been better as tyranny of senior devs as a group rather than ever one dev.. even if that was BM himself.
-
We used tyranny of the faithful and hopefully even-handed parent.
:o I'm sure you don't intend to suggest we are children..
but still it would have been better as tyranny of senior devs as a group rather than ever one dev.. even if that was BM himself.
Again - always with the choice of metaphor.
I'm using the parental experience many of us have had when it comes time to share a non-homogeneous asset among people you care about and when you wish to honor their trust in you.
And BM discussed this with all the developers. Then synthesized a mix using his best judgement. The buck stops there.
-
We donated AGS
Ever,we feel we are the most honorable men.
But now,we are just the most funny clowns.
shit!!