0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
@amencoin & Bitshatkingplease stop this ridiculous quarell... One has the great passion and almost religious belief in BTS, tries to rally the troops behind the leaders.this is very different to what another one who is critical thinker hopes for. Please just agree to disagree based on completely different backgrounds, cultures, characters, and approaches. Just agree to do your best for the advancement of the project, and listen to feedback from the community and developers with regards to the usefullness of your actions.@Bitshatking - I don't think amencoin is a traitor, there is no reason to blame that. Even though you are very energetic in your backing of Bitshares leaders, also 3I is learning from community input and constructive criticisms. diversity of opinions and perspectives among community is crucial in finding the best way forward for a decentralised company! perhaps it would be wiser for you to soften your communication somewhat.In that sense, Bitshares United!
@amencoin & Bitshatkingplease stop this ridiculous quarell... One has the great passion and almost religious belief in BTS, tries to rally the troops behind the leaders.this is very different to what another one who is critical thinker hopes for. Please just agree to disagree based on completely different backgrounds, cultures, characters, and approaches. Just agree to do your best for the advancement of the project, and listen to feedback from the community and developers with regards to the usefullness of your actions.@Bitshatking - I don't think amencoin is a traitor, there is no reason to blame that. Even though you are very energetic in your backing of Bitshares leaders, also 3I is learning from community input and constructive criticisms. perhaps it would be wiser for you to soften your communication somewhat.Bitshares United!
to make it clear why it is not fair in my eyes;Alice: invested all her money in the AGS Snapshot before Feb 28. and get 1% of BTSX == 580.000 AGS existed at this point she is holding 5800 AGS Bob: invested all ist money after the BTSX Snapshort Feb. 28 and gets 1% total in AGS == 2.000.000 AGS exists and he holds 20.000 AGSAlice is happy because she thinks BTSX has the biggest succesrate of all bitshares chainBob is also happy because he thinks he will benifet from multiply promising bitshares chains (DNS, Music, Vote, Play where already announced)Let's check where Alice and Bobs stands before and after the mergerAlice : holds 0.5% BTSX from 50/50 allocation = = 10.000.000 BTSX worth 250.000 USD holds DNS 5.800.000 worth 4.187 USD holds Vote 4.350.000 worth ?Bob : holds DNS 40.000.000 worth 28.880 USD holds Vote 15.000.000 worth ?Alice and Bob are happy!After the mergerAlice : BTSX stake is worth the same 250.000 USD DNS stake is worth 2.000 USD and have a lock up period Vote stake is worht 1.500 USD and have a lock up period AGS stake are converted to BTS with worth 11.600 USD and has a lock up period- she looses the ability for future snapshots because everything is transferd to BTS, but this is ok for her, because her major stake in already in BTSXBob : DNS stake is worth 14.400 USD and have a lock up period Vote stake is worth 12.000 USD and have a lock up period AGS stake are converted in BTS with worth 40.000 USD and has a lock up period- he looses the ability for future snapshots, because everything is transferd to BTS, he is not appy, because he invested to benefit from future bitshares chainsWhat i not took in account is that Alice donored more BTC to get her share, and Bob less. But if you convert it back you will see that Alice gained much more then Bob. Do you think Bob should support this merger? Do you think it is ok for Alice to get all the windfall profits?
Quote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 05:23:40 pmQuote from: BitshatKing on October 24, 2014, 04:57:21 pmQuote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 03:57:02 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 03:24:20 pmQuote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 01:52:31 pmQuote from: James212 on October 24, 2014, 12:08:48 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 09:27:33 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements. You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 12:16:39 pmThey always speak clearly and honestly about the options.People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been. You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus. I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.Oh u think u know best for Bitshares! Why cant u just get OVER IT! Keep opinion to youself! Stop hurting Bitshares because u angry.I've stated many times that this might very well be the best for Bitshares. Sorry you find my opinions on things so frustrating. I'm actually not angry, I just don't agree with everything that has happened and dislike many attitudes I find within this community, your thread about I3 and Mao serving as a quintessential example.Hear me...Mao all ways put his people first just like Stan and Dan. Some people loose. Ok. Sacrifice necessary for STRONG BITSHARES!If u dont like GET OUT TRATOR!!!
Quote from: BitshatKing on October 24, 2014, 04:57:21 pmQuote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 03:57:02 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 03:24:20 pmQuote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 01:52:31 pmQuote from: James212 on October 24, 2014, 12:08:48 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 09:27:33 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements. You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 12:16:39 pmThey always speak clearly and honestly about the options.People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been. You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus. I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.Oh u think u know best for Bitshares! Why cant u just get OVER IT! Keep opinion to youself! Stop hurting Bitshares because u angry.I've stated many times that this might very well be the best for Bitshares. Sorry you find my opinions on things so frustrating. I'm actually not angry, I just don't agree with everything that has happened and dislike many attitudes I find within this community, your thread about I3 and Mao serving as a quintessential example.
Quote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 03:57:02 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 03:24:20 pmQuote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 01:52:31 pmQuote from: James212 on October 24, 2014, 12:08:48 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 09:27:33 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements. You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 12:16:39 pmThey always speak clearly and honestly about the options.People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been. You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus. I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.Oh u think u know best for Bitshares! Why cant u just get OVER IT! Keep opinion to youself! Stop hurting Bitshares because u angry.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 03:24:20 pmQuote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 01:52:31 pmQuote from: James212 on October 24, 2014, 12:08:48 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 09:27:33 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements. You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 12:16:39 pmThey always speak clearly and honestly about the options.People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been. You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus. I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.
Quote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 01:52:31 pmQuote from: James212 on October 24, 2014, 12:08:48 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 09:27:33 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements. You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 12:16:39 pmThey always speak clearly and honestly about the options.People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.
Quote from: James212 on October 24, 2014, 12:08:48 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 09:27:33 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements. You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 09:27:33 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?
Quote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.
They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.
Social ContractOne of the main issues here is that it is not fulfilled. It lured a lot of people into trusting III. Even if they had no intention to follow the contract they didn't make enough effort to say it clear. With the proposal even if it is fair under some perspectives it is unfair in the terms of the contract. This is what bothers many people. There were many suggestions attempting to make an alternative proposal abiding the contract AND merging all into one chain. Apparently something else is needed to persuade III.
I agree, we have no idea. BM could be wrong, and the community could call him out on it, but the community could be wrong as well, not calling him out on it, and we would not necessarily know until it all goes downhill. It seems to me however that what we have over all the other communities is an invaluable intellectual flexibility that comes with independent critical thinkers reaching reasoned consensus.
..I've stated many times that this might very well be the best for Bitshares. Sorry you find my opinions on things so frustrating. I'm actually not angry, I just don't agree with everything that has happened and dislike many attitudes I find within this community, your thread about I3 and Mao serving as a quintessential example.
Quote from: amencon on October 24, 2014, 03:57:02 pmif you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.Without consensus from the people who are heavily involved in and understand this space I3 would not have gone through with the proposal. This was the condition in every iteration, that we all discuss the proposal freely and let the best ideas and arguments win the day. We don't just trust BM to make a change whenever he feels like it, he has to convince us with arguments - if he is not able, as has happened several times, the proposal is revoked.
if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.
It was 3I who were going to be creating the vast majority of new DACs for PTS + AGS. Now that 3I are going to be working on only BTS, the work for those future DACs is included in the PTS + AGS allocation. There aren't tons of developers as far as I gather planning to release lots of DACs so it's almost entirely taken care of by airdropping to PTS + AGS as proposed. PTS + AGS feel they are missing out on future DACs, when realistically, almost all of those future DACs were going to be made by 3I and now PTS + AGS have a stake in all their future work. And just in case there are other developers with other DACs, they can snapshot BTS and include everyone. It's not perfect as everyone knows but people talk as if they were expecting most new DACs to come from third parties when in reality PTS + AGS was another way to invest in 3I, and that's what they are getting.Edit: It appears there isn't a 'social consensus' anymore anyway on who 3rd party DACs (in the rare occasion they exist) they should snapshop in the future so it will probably just be up to the devs as it always was.
Keep it simple, I say.Just merge the market caps and get it done. The proposal looks to be a simple change from new DACs honoring PTS/AGS to also honoring BTSX, all within a new BTS. The benefits far out way the losses. +20%
Quote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:47:50 amQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 24, 2014, 08:34:39 amI don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise. The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.
Quote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 11:13:55 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:50:58 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 09:48:20 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:45:20 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 09:35:26 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:28:04 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:31:12 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 08:23:18 amEveryone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?In this (original) sense.And more specifically these important bits.No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares. Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on thishttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you? What I said in response to that was: "BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."Does that make sense?You do not include the inevitable dilution via business delegates. New shares are going to be issued but the newly issued shares will not be distributed 10/10 to AGS/PTS. And this contradicts the "total lifetime shares ever allocated" rule. Furthermore for all future DACs post feb28 AGS/PTS holders get significantly less than promised. I've made some calculations here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.0 . I understand that it might not be the original intent because this contract exists in another form stating that the allocation is valid only for genesis block. However failure to make this clear is significant fault IMHO.EDIT1: added a point for future DACsWhat is with my argument that BTS is not a new chain which would not give AGS/PTS any right at all? I agree with you that AGS/PTS get too little but for a different reason. Maybe we can discuss it on mumble. I am there now and will be until todays mumble at 9 pm eastern.
Quote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:50:58 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 09:48:20 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:45:20 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 09:35:26 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:28:04 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:31:12 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 08:23:18 amEveryone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?In this (original) sense.And more specifically these important bits.No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares. Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on thishttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you? What I said in response to that was: "BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."Does that make sense?You do not include the inevitable dilution via business delegates. New shares are going to be issued but the newly issued shares will not be distributed 10/10 to AGS/PTS. And this contradicts the "total lifetime shares ever allocated" rule. Furthermore for all future DACs post feb28 AGS/PTS holders get significantly less than promised. I've made some calculations here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.0 . I understand that it might not be the original intent because this contract exists in another form stating that the allocation is valid only for genesis block. However failure to make this clear is significant fault IMHO.EDIT1: added a point for future DACs
Quote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 09:48:20 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:45:20 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 09:35:26 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:28:04 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:31:12 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 08:23:18 amEveryone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?In this (original) sense.And more specifically these important bits.No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares. Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on thishttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you? What I said in response to that was: "BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."Does that make sense?
Quote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:45:20 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 09:35:26 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:28:04 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:31:12 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 08:23:18 amEveryone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?In this (original) sense.And more specifically these important bits.No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares. Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on thishttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.
Quote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 09:35:26 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:28:04 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:31:12 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 08:23:18 amEveryone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?In this (original) sense.And more specifically these important bits.No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares. Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this
Quote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:28:04 amQuote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:31:12 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 08:23:18 amEveryone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?In this (original) sense.And more specifically these important bits.No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares. Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.
Quote from: emski on October 24, 2014, 08:31:12 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 08:23:18 amEveryone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?In this (original) sense.And more specifically these important bits.No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.
Quote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 08:23:18 amEveryone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?In this (original) sense.And more specifically these important bits.
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
Quote from: Bitty on October 24, 2014, 10:04:20 amQuote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:52:00 amQuote from: Bitty on October 24, 2014, 09:50:40 amCorrect me if I'm wrong:Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406I guess you are rightSome of us, like myself, invested a substantial amount of money in PTS (and/or AGS) missing out on the BTSX snapshot, strongly having faith in the whole Bitshares platform and the power of the upcoming DACs. The amount of shares in the new merger we will receive is painfully low, leading to some big losses in value...The least the devs can do or try doing, is coming up with a solution to honour their early believers and supporters.There must be some way to do this, right?Right, it is a balance between the interest group you are in (I am in there too!) and those that bought BTSX on exchanges. What is needed is a clear reasoning for what is done.
Quote from: delulo on October 24, 2014, 09:52:00 amQuote from: Bitty on October 24, 2014, 09:50:40 amCorrect me if I'm wrong:Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406I guess you are rightSome of us, like myself, invested a substantial amount of money in PTS (and/or AGS) missing out on the BTSX snapshot, strongly having faith in the whole Bitshares platform and the power of the upcoming DACs. The amount of shares in the new merger we will receive is painfully low, leading to some big losses in value...The least the devs can do or try doing, is coming up with a solution to honour their early believers and supporters.There must be some way to do this, right?
Quote from: Bitty on October 24, 2014, 09:50:40 amCorrect me if I'm wrong:Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406
Correct me if I'm wrong:Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?