-
Invictus would like to thank those that donated PTS to our Angel Shares campaign, but has concluded that we cannot accept them. All 415,000 PTS will be returned to the original donors this month.
Invictus will still retain all BTC donated and has no plans at this time to return those funds.
Invictus has not been contacted by any government agencies, and this move has nothing to do with the legal position of AngelShares.
-
Weird ...
Does it help with some compliances?
-
What?
So this is a refund post snapshot. Basically AGS holders are still AGS holders and I3 will still receive the BTS from the snapshot while it was holding them. It doesn't change anything except all those who donated will receive their PTS back?
-
Will Invictus still retain the BTC donated?
-
Now I guess we can look forward to another confused panic sell.
Why announce this now and what does it mean?
-
What?
So this is a refund post snapshot. Basically AGS holders are still AGS holders and I3 will still receive the BTS from the snapshot while it was holding them. It doesn't change anything except all those who donated will receive their PTS back?
AGS is still a record of those who had intent to give even if their gift was returned ;)
-
Will Invictus still retain the BTC donated?
Yes
-
Now I guess we can look forward to another confused panic sell.
Why announce this now and what does it mean?
+5%
-
Now I guess we can look forward to another confused panic sell.
Why announce this now and what does it mean?
+5%
guess this has legal concerns …
-
Just to make sute- all pts donated will be returned to the donating address 1:1?
-
Now I guess we can look forward to another confused panic sell.
Why announce this now and what does it mean?
This is good for Invictus and everyone involved.
-
Invictus has not been contacted by any government agencies, and this move has nothing to do with the legal position of AngelShares.
Whaaaat?
So these changes HAVENT all been a result of needing to comply with SEC/other three letter government agencies?
Then what were they for? What possible other reason could there be for giving the PTS back?
-
Invictus has not been contacted by any government agencies, and this move has nothing to do with the legal position of AngelShares.
Whaaaat?
So these changes HAVENT all been a result of needing to comply with SEC/other three letter government agencies?
Then what were they for? What possible other reason could there be for giving the PTS back?
They are more or less useless, no point holding onto them when in future a question might arise regarding what happened to funds.
Besides, if there is any chance that PTS survives, it couldn't have with almost a quarter of the supply in one hand.
-
Invictus will still retain all BTC donated and has no plans at this time to return those funds.
I bet when bitshares marketcap is at $1 billion and 1 BTC = $30 we will get our bitcoins donations back too :P (genius!)
-
Just to make sute- all pts donated will be returned to the donating address 1:1?
Yes
-
I bet when bitshares marketcap is at $1 billion and 1 BTC = $30 we will get our bitcoins donations back too :P (genius!)
Given that BTC just started a rise to $3000, we are never seeing 30 again. ;)
-
Can you please explain your reasons for doing so? Conspiracy theories thrive where there is an absence of information
-
When most of the Chinese wake up and see this news,they will deem this refund behavior as III has a serious legal problems,and then what?
Sell Sell Sell...
Just my guess.
-
Does this change BTS/BTSX allocations/distribution?
-
(http://ctya.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/checkmated2.jpg)
-
Just to make sute- all pts donated will be returned to the donating address 1:1?
Yes
I am happy on so many levels.
Happy for myself.
Happy for all PTS donors.
Happy for Invictus.
Happy for alphaBar and his PTS fair distribution.
Happy for my advisers.
;)
This is a win-win-win-win-win situation.
-
Does this change BTS/BTSX allocations/distribution?
No
-
Just to make sute- all pts donated will be returned to the donating address 1:1?
Yes
I am happy on so many levels.
Happy for myself.
Happy for all PTS donors.
Happy for Invictus.
Happy for alphaBar and his PTS fair distribution.
Happy for my advisers.
;)
This is a win-win-win-win-win situation.
Someone gets it ;)
-
when will we get them back?
because maybe it will be a race to dumb them... (or not?)
edit:
I suppose not.
-
Cool :)
-
How will this be achieved? I am curious how you would logistically do this? Would it be a sendmany option as what's in the qt?
-
Just to make sute- all pts donated will be returned to the donating address 1:1?
Yes
I am happy on so many levels.
Happy for myself.
Happy for all PTS donors.
Happy for Invictus.
Happy for alphaBar and his PTS fair distribution.
Happy for my advisers.
;)
This is a win-win-win-win-win situation.
Someone gets it ;)
I was going to say win-win-win-win, but I never even considered the possiblity of making tonyk2 happy. :)
-
How will this be achieved? I am curious how you would logistically do this? Would it be a sendmany option as what's in the qt?
Send to many transaction, we are working out the implementation details.
-
(http://ctya.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/checkmated2.jpg)
I see you are thinking several moves ahead!
:)
-
415,000 PTS at recent value is less than 350 BTC.
415,000 PTS at the value of PTS during the donation period was more than 3,000 BTC.
Well played.
-
415,000 PTS at recent value is less than 350 BTC.
415,000 PTS at the value of PTS during the donation period was more than 3,000 BTC.
Well played.
1) AGS donation .. was a DONATION .. price irrelevant
2) I3 is giving back funds .. the obviously didn't need them
3) who cares about the price when your DONATED!! them .. current price is >0 .. and as such I3 is effectively gifting every one that donated PTS to AGS ..!?
I can't see your problems here?
-
Ok, I don't understand the reasons, I just hope it doesn't take too much time to sort out.
-
415,000 PTS at recent value is less than 350 BTC.
415,000 PTS at the value of PTS during the donation period was more than 3,000 BTC.
Well played.
I'm sure some FUD spreader will manage to say 'i3 steals 2650 BTC' out of this. :P
-
Awesome!! This resolves a huge issue PTS' update to DPOS was facing.
3I keeps demonstrating over and over their desire to do right.
This day just keeps getting better :)
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
When most of the Chinese wake up and see this news,they will deem this refund behavior as III has a serious legal problems,and then what?
Sell Sell Sell...
Just my guess.
Or this is a sign that I3 has resolved potential legal problems before they become a problem. Nothing appears to have changed from the bottom line perspective.
Developers are now independent and no longer depending upon I3 for future growth. BitShares is now unified. The BTC funds are mostly spent and the product has been delivered.
I3 couldn't realistically sell the PTS and holding the PTS was a liability on the value of PTS and chances are they will get much of their own personal PTS back as a result of this move.
I see this move has having several major advantages for I3:
- In the event the SEC did get involved, they have already returned 50% funds raised which could help reduce any potential fines.
- It probably helps them with taxes in the event the donations are considered ordinary income. They probably couldn't sell the PTS for enough to cover the potential taxes owed.
- It gives PTS potential for 3rd parties to share drop without having to worry about funding competition.
- It makes PTS more vender neutral.
Over all I don't see how this could be bad for anyone. Perhaps AGS donors will dump PTS, but then again they were long term holders.
-
+5%
want to hear what alphabar thinks. PTS upgrade is much more realistic now.
-
:o
I was about to go to bed,
Then I found this thread,
I tried to think, with my tired head,
To drastic action this thread has lead!
:P
-
It does make sense for tax reasons.
Rather than try to pay taxes on the pts donation, which would be impossible, they just undonate them, while simultaneously allowing PTS to live on its own.
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
Which is why I would prefer if I3 disclose of their motives for doing so - before someone not in the know makes up some FUD and spreads it as Truth
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
How about that:
(https://i.imgflip.com/e3c0v.jpg)
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
Which is why I would prefer if I3 disclose of their motives for doing so - before someone not in the know makes up some FUD and spreads it as Truth
I am sure they have reasons for what they do.
What makes you so sure FUD cannot be spread regardless?
-
Why not just send them to a burn address? It would be way easier logistics wise. I suppose that won't really benefit original donators though.
-
Why not just send them to a burn address? It would be way easier logistics wise. I suppose that won't really benefit original donators though.
That wouldn't help in the event the motivation was tax based or the SEC orders them to return the funds anyway.
-
It's very kind of I3. Another mostly selfless gesture, which probably also cleans up a few potential problems on their end.
This should tank the PTS price, since they are being moved from a long term holder to at least some owners who will sell. Unless there's a great deal of confidence in Alphabar, which I've not seen yet, I think he's going to be starting with a lot less here. I'll be glad if I'm wrong.
Clean slate for PTS. Dirt thrown over its grave. Will it rise as a zombie or stay buried?
-
415,000 PTS at recent value is less than 350 BTC.
415,000 PTS at the value of PTS during the donation period was more than 3,000 BTC.
Well played.
1) AGS donation .. was a DONATION .. price irrelevant
2) I3 is giving back funds .. the obviously didn't need them
3) who cares about the price when your DONATED!! them .. current price is >0 .. and as such I3 is effectively gifting every one that donated PTS to AGS ..!?
I can't see your problems here?
I have no problems. I could care less since I donated mostly via btc. I was just stating some approximate figures, if I had not posted them someone else would have. Personally, I think the team has done a remarkable job aligning all the moving parts of BTS and this is just another solid play on their part.
The one thing I am a bit confused about and maybe it is not my business or is not important, but recently the development team was each given a bunch of PTS, something like 30,000 each, did that happen or not.
-
Why not just send them to a burn address? It would be way easier logistics wise. I suppose that won't really benefit original donators though.
That wouldn't help in the event the motivation was tax based or the SEC orders them to return the funds anyway.
Hmm good points! Tax could be an interesting issue, wouldn't all receivers of BTSX have to sell a good chunk to cover the tax burden associated with the gift they received?
-
Why not just send them to a burn address? It would be way easier logistics wise. I suppose that won't really benefit original donators though.
That wouldn't help in the event the motivation was tax based or the SEC orders them to return the funds anyway.
Hmm good points! Tax could be an interesting issue, wouldn't all receivers of BTSX have to sell a good chunk to cover the tax burden associated with the gift they received?
Cost basis in BTS is 0... you pay taxes when you sell them.
-
I hope I have read between the lines correctly, and reached the proper conclusions on the ramifications of this news...
-
The one thing I am a bit confused about and maybe it is not my business or is not important, but recently the development team was each given a bunch of PTS, something like 30,000 each, did that happen or not.
Yes, but the value of that move for the devs was not the PTS value itself but the added BTS they have indirectly "won" cause they received the PTS pre snapshot...
-
The upgrade of PTS to a DPOS chain faced a big centralization issue since I3 would control such a large percentage of the votes. When PTS was a POW coin this didn't make a difference because the shareholder's opinion didn't count for much. As a DPOS coin it matters. By returning the PTS donations they have effectively redistributed them throughout the community solving that issue in one shot.
Brilliant and hyperopic.
-
The upgrade of PTS to a DPOS chain faced a big centralization issue since I3 would control such a large percentage of the votes. When PTS was a POW coin this didn't make a difference because the shareholder's opinion didn't count for much. As a DPOS coin it matters. By returning the PTS donations they have effectively redistributed them throughout the community solving that issue in one shot.
Brilliant and hyperopic.
And makes many AGS holders "liquid" again in PTS... so brings in a larger and stronger user base for PTS ;)
-
Brilliant and hyperopic.
this
-
so glad you guys are on are side! :)
-
Hello
Wasn't there a PTS snapshot on November 5th?
So Invictus has kept the PTS, snagged the snapshot and now gives back the PTS to avoid legal issues?
First Invictus establishes PTS
Then Angelshares can be acquired by donating PTS
Invictus can conveniently donate their own PTS to themselves as nobody can prove otherwise
BTSX are derived from Angelshares
Invictus makes PTS snapshot and reaps all the profit from the self donated (and artificially increased third-part donations) PTS
Invictus returns PTS to avoid legal issues
Through this process Invictus continuously washes dirty profit and artificially increases value for the individual product and thereby draws in unsuspecting donators/ investors.
Please, when will be the next snapshot and what new product will you create by donating to yourself with a product you created previously?
-
Hello
Wasn't there a PTS snapshot on November 5th?
So Invictus has kept the PTS, snagged the snapshot and now gives back the PTS to avoid legal issues?
First Invictus establishes PTS
Then Angelshares can be acquired by donating PTS
Invictus can conveniently donate their own PTS to themselves as nobody can prove otherwise
BTSX are derived from Angelshares
Invictus makes PTS snapshot and reaps all the profit from the self donated (and artificially increased third-part donations) PTS
Invictus returns PTS to avoid legal issues
Through this process Invictus continuously washes dirty profit and artificially increases value for the individual product and thereby draws in unsuspecting donators/ investors.
Please, when will be the next snapshot and what new product will you create by donating to yourself with a product you created previously?
aaaaand cue the FUD.
-
Now I guess we can look forward to another confused panic sell.
:-\
-
Hello
Wasn't there a PTS snapshot on November 5th?
So Invictus has kept the PTS, snagged the snapshot and now gives back the PTS to avoid legal issues?
First Invictus establishes PTS
Then Angelshares can be acquired by donating PTS
Invictus can conveniently donate their own PTS to themselves as nobody can prove otherwise
BTSX are derived from Angelshares
Invictus makes PTS snapshot and reaps all the profit from the self donated (and artificially increased third-part donations) PTS
Invictus returns PTS to avoid legal issues
Through this process Invictus continuously washes dirty profit and artificially increases value for the individual product and thereby draws in unsuspecting donators/ investors.
Please, when will be the next snapshot and what new product will you create by donating to yourself with a product you created previously?
just as i said earlier....
-
aaaaand cue the FUD.
That is a rather cheap counterargument. Why not give a rational explanation instead of unfounded accusation?
-
Hello
Wasn't there a PTS snapshot on November 5th?
So Invictus has kept the PTS, snagged the snapshot and now gives back the PTS to avoid legal issues?
First Invictus establishes PTS
Then Angelshares can be acquired by donating PTS
Invictus can conveniently donate their own PTS to themselves as nobody can prove otherwise
BTSX are derived from Angelshares
Invictus makes PTS snapshot and reaps all the profit from the self donated (and artificially increased third-part donations) PTS
Invictus returns PTS to avoid legal issues
Through this process Invictus continuously washes dirty profit and artificially increases value for the individual product and thereby draws in unsuspecting donators/ investors.
Please, when will be the next snapshot and what new product will you create by donating to yourself with a product you created previously?
The view of someone who hasn't spent any time reading the developer views, propositions, thoughts, or ideas and comes from one of the many scam coins where he/she has been left in the dust without their investment. I'd spend a lot more time reading up before posting some backward narrative and accusations like above.
-
Yup, there is the FUD that they will spread about this, trying to sucker some poor chinese language investors who dont know what is happening into selling.
At some point in the future, I3 will dissolve, and then the FUD will be "bitshares is dead" or soemthing like that. I can see it already.
-
The view of someone who hasn't spent any time reading the developer views, propositions, thoughts, or ideas and comes from one of the many scam coins where he/she has been left in the dust without their investment. I'd spend a lot more time reading up before posting some backward narrative and accusations like above.
Again, please provide the correct information if you will.
There is no need to suspect my motives as they are obvious. I invested in BTSX and the continous dubious behaviour of ever changing plans and my aforementioned little analysis ( I don't claim 100% accuracy, so please correct misunderstood parts) has me highly alert.
On the contrary I find the blind acceptance on this forum dangerous and frankly not very intelligent. BM surprisingly states an important development with nebulous implications and everybody here is happily blinded by profit that nobody questions why he did not even state the slightes of reasons.
-
Hello
Wasn't there a PTS snapshot on November 5th?
So Invictus has kept the PTS, snagged the snapshot and now gives back the PTS to avoid legal issues?
First Invictus establishes PTS
Then Angelshares can be acquired by donating PTS
Invictus can conveniently donate their own PTS to themselves as nobody can prove otherwise
BTSX are derived from Angelshares
Invictus makes PTS snapshot and reaps all the profit from the self donated (and artificially increased third-part donations) PTS
Invictus returns PTS to avoid legal issues
Through this process Invictus continuously washes dirty profit and artificially increases value for the individual product and thereby draws in unsuspecting donators/ investors.
Please, when will be the next snapshot and what new product will you create by donating to yourself with a product you created previously?
Calling tax optimization "legal reasons" is a mischaracterization.
You *can* prove that AGS donations were not recycled. All other donations are fair game.
Which parties remain unsatisfied here? Do you think i3 profited disproportionately?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
BM, we all under estimated you. It is a brilliant idea to refund pts back to original donor. +5% +5% +5% +5%
Why not just send them to a burn address? It would be way easier logistics wise. I suppose that won't really benefit original donators though.
That wouldn't help in the event the motivation was tax based or the SEC orders them to return the funds anyway.
Hmm good points! Tax could be an interesting issue, wouldn't all receivers of BTSX have to sell a good chunk to cover the tax burden associated with the gift they received?
Cost basis in BTS is 0... you pay taxes when you sell them.
-
I cannot prove or disprove anything and that is the exact problem.
I am simply a user and investor. My life does not solely revolve about BTS and this is my first time ever posting on this forum, although - contrary to the three-syllable all capslock screamers - I am an avid reader here.
The haze around bitshares and Invictus' motives is thick, filled with distracting memes and obfuscating investment schemes that are stacked upon each other to build a value drawing pyramid.
I am not implying an intention on your part, as that is unprovable. But the general way in which this system is built is under every consideration dubious. It is not even about recycling donations. You didn't need to as you simply kept the donations for one product to then use them as the basis for another. I cannot see that holding legal ground.
You have on bottle of water - everyone can take from it
Then you propose a new bottle - everybody who fills it with the water gets juice
Now you take a nice picture and propose that everybody who now has water gets wine - nice because you now have so much from all the people that donated
The problem:
First you said everybody who has water gets wine
Then: oh no everybody who has either water or juice gets wine, just donate your water to us for better rates
Then: oh if you were seen with water on our group photo you get additional wine - oh surprise we have a huge amount of water that you donated to us, so thanks for the wine, idiots!
Then: We give you back your water, because we are caring our users (i.e.: the hands that feed us)
Next up: Donate all your bitshares to receive turboshares. After that we will make a snapshot for all bitshares holders (surprise surprise thats mostly us!) to get Megashares, but don't worry we will merge them all to universeshares.
-
Again, please provide the correct information if you will.
There is no need to suspect my motives as they are obvious. I invested in BTSX and the continous dubious behaviour of ever changing plans and my aforementioned little analysis ( I don't claim 100% accuracy, so please correct misunderstood parts) has me highly alert.
On the contrary I find the blind acceptance on this forum dangerous and frankly not very intelligent. BM surprisingly states an important development with nebulous implications and everybody here is happily blinded by profit that nobody questions why he did not even state the slightes of reasons.
Its not blind acceptance.
Its that we actually understand what the changes are.
-
Hello
Wasn't there a PTS snapshot on November 5th?
So Invictus has kept the PTS, snagged the snapshot and now gives back the PTS to avoid legal issues?
First Invictus establishes PTS
Then Angelshares can be acquired by donating PTS
Invictus can conveniently donate their own PTS to themselves as nobody can prove otherwise
BTSX are derived from Angelshares
Invictus makes PTS snapshot and reaps all the profit from the self donated (and artificially increased third-part donations) PTS
Invictus returns PTS to avoid legal issues
Through this process Invictus continuously washes dirty profit and artificially increases value for the individual product and thereby draws in unsuspecting donators/ investors.
Please, when will be the next snapshot and what new product will you create by donating to yourself with a product you created previously?
Reading this makes me very unoptimistic about the mankind's future .... and present. The only purpose of the society, in its current form, is to stay on the way or twist the natural selections that otherwise would exist.
-
aaaaand cue the FUD.
That is a rather cheap counterargument. Why not give a rational explanation instead of unfounded accusation?
Oh, that wasn't meant as a counterargument. I said that because the accusatory content of your comment made it sound like you had already decided exactly what you thought and that you wouldn't be interested in argument. If I interpreted your comment incorrectly, please accept my apologies for my rude reply.
Compare two scenarios: in scenario A, Invictus keeps all the donated PTS, severely hampering the efforts of those who want to upgrade it to DPOS (it would be effectively impossible to perform this upgrade and maintain the integrity of PTS if only one entity holds such a large fraction of the total coins).
In scenario B, Invictus returns all PTS to the original donators. Now PTS can gracefully upgrade to PTS with a fair distribution, and the community largely supports the move.
Now, which scenario is better? I think it's pretty obvious that B is better, even before we consider all the other benefits (taxes, SEC compliance, etc etc). So why are you so critical of this move? Who does it harm? AGS donators? No, since they got all their snapshots and now they're getting their donations back. Invictus? No, since PTS currently has very little market value and so it's better to return the funds for the sake of PR than to let them gather dust.
Now, think back to the beginning of the AGS donation campaign. What were donators told? That they would get a snapshot of all Invictus projects. They were told that their donation addresses would be forever enshrined in the AGS list. So based on those 2 things, people donated PTS. Note that Invictus delivered completely on those two things. Now, without revoking either of those two privileges, Invictus announces today that AGS donators get a third benefit: they get their PTS back! This third benefit detracts nothing from the other two!
Another argument you make is that Invictus is just doing all this to accumulate funds. If that's the case, why are they still around? It's not a scam if the scammer does what he said he was going to do. You seem to think it's unfair somehow that Invictus gets to keep all the BTS that was snapshotted from the AGS PTS. That's an opinion you're allowed to have, but you express it as though they're doing it in secret. Nothing could be further from the truth! They've been very open about this from the start.
So those are a few of the reasons I liked BM's proposal to return the PTS. I've been active on this forum for a long time; I am used to forming opinions quickly. So please be more careful to discern the difference between blind acceptance and rapid, thought-out acceptance.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
I'm impressed.
You guys have come up with even more good reasons to do this than we did.
(But by remaining silent we get to take credit for them all.)
:)
-
I fail to see how returning all PTS to donators, can benefit in anyway I3. also I can't understand how can someone find anything malicious in this act. But hey, it looks that anything is possible .....
So let me see !! Keeping the PTS is alright but given them back is bad ??? I'm not saying that every I3 decision was genius, but common what the heck is wrong with giving PTS back ? You do whatever you want with your money. I3 they do whatever they want with their PTS.
Before, because they have so many, was already bad for some, had they burn it it would have been bad, now they give them back is bad. Am I missing something or what ??
-
Reading this makes me very unoptimistic about the mankind's future .... and present. The only purpose of the society, in its current form, is to stay on the way or twist the natural selections that otherwise would exist.
That posting may have been from a real person. But it was just painful enough to read that it made me question its source. I'm not dismissing newbies if that person really exists and has those questions. But I think sometimes there are community members who get their kicks from two-timing the forum and trivializing the counter-arguments in a way that makes them seem fairly laughable. You wouldn't know anything about that, would you?
-
I'm impressed.
You guys have come up with even more good reasons to do this than we did.
(But by remaining silent we get to take credit for them all.)
:)
priceless, and great management.
-
Great idea! One stone, many birds. +5% +5%
-
Reading this makes me very unoptimistic about the mankind's future .... and present. The only purpose of the society, in its current form, is to stay on the way or twist the natural selections that otherwise would exist.
That posting may have been from a real person. But it was just painful enough to read that it made me question its source. I'm not dismissing newbies if that person really exists and has those questions. But I think sometimes there are community members who get their kicks from two-timing the forum and trivializing the counter-arguments in a way that makes them seem fairly laughable. You wouldn't know anything about that, would you?
And often times, a user will never post until they absolutely have to, or there is a final straw. I'm not saying I agree with what the user said, but I am disappointed in the way that this announcement was made. How can you be surprised at people questioning I3's motives when none are given? Can we please have an official explanation? Every thing that's been said here is speculation.
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
How about that:
(https://i.imgflip.com/e3c0v.jpg)
Actually some guys in Chinese QQ group think that's not good news.
You always can't make everyone satisfied. That's true. :-X
-
Thank you bytemaster, I3, and everyone involved for doing this. I just can't commend you enough for this. Hopefully these words of praise from a very skeptical and somewhat ornery guy are enough to convey the point. +5%
-
Thank you bytemaster, I3, and everyone involved for doing this. I just can't commend you enough for this. Hopefully these words of praise from a very skeptical and somewhat ornery guy are enough to convey the point. +5%
Plus five
-
I'm impressed.
You guys have come up with even more good reasons to do this than we did.
(But by remaining silent we get to take credit for them all.)
:)
This speaks to one of the great reasons I3, and BitShares in general, have been and will continue to be successful. A depth and breadth of varying talents. Clearly they have benefited from your corporate experience.
-
Thank you bytemaster, I3, and everyone involved for doing this. I just can't commend you enough for this. Hopefully these words of praise from a very skeptical and somewhat ornery guy are enough to convey the point. +5%
+5%
-
Thank you bytemaster, I3, and everyone involved for doing this. I just can't commend you enough for this. Hopefully these words of praise from a very skeptical and somewhat ornery guy are enough to convey the point. +5%
What am I dreaming ?? :o
-
Thank you bytemaster, I3, and everyone involved for doing this. I just can't commend you enough for this. Hopefully these words of praise from a very skeptical and somewhat ornery guy are enough to convey the point. +5%
+5%
+5%
Just to make sute- all pts donated will be returned to the donating address 1:1?
Yes
I am happy on so many levels.
Happy for myself.
Happy for all PTS donors.
Happy for Invictus.
Happy for alphaBar and his PTS fair distribution.
Happy for my advisers.
;)
This is a win-win-win-win-win situation.
-
I'm impressed.
You guys have come up with even more good reasons to do this than we did.
(But by remaining silent we get to take credit for them all.)
:)
This speaks to one of the great reasons I3, and BitShares in general, have been and will continue to be successful. A depth and breadth of varying talents. Clearly they have benefited from your corporate experience.
Nothing like a good ole circle jerk right?
-
I'm impressed.
You guys have come up with even more good reasons to do this than we did.
(But by remaining silent we get to take credit for them all.)
:)
This speaks to one of the great reasons I3, and BitShares in general, have been and will continue to be successful. A depth and breadth of varying talents. Clearly they have benefited from your corporate experience.
Nothing like a good ole circle jerk right?
You've brought up circle jerk a few times already in previous comments. If you attend any meetups, please let me know which ones to avoid. :) Everyone deals with stress differently, best of luck to you.
-
Nothing like a good ole circle jerk right?
How goes the NXT?
-
I'm impressed.
You guys have come up with even more good reasons to do this than we did.
(But by remaining silent we get to take credit for them all.)
:)
This speaks to one of the great reasons I3, and BitShares in general, have been and will continue to be successful. A depth and breadth of varying talents. Clearly they have benefited from your corporate experience.
Nothing like a good ole circle jerk right?
You've brought up circle jerk a few times already in previous comments. If you attend any meetups, please let me know which ones to avoid. :) Everyone deals with stress differently, best of luck to you.
Hey, cut him some slack. He is self employed, and it is really tough having an idiot for a boss.
-
Nothing like a good ole circle jerk right?
Indeed. What's your Grindr name?
-
Thank you bytemaster, I3, and everyone involved for doing this. I just can't commend you enough for this. Hopefully these words of praise from a very skeptical and somewhat ornery guy are enough to convey the point. +5%
+5% great for the community.
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
How about that:
(https://i.imgflip.com/e3c0v.jpg)
Actually some guys in Chinese QQ group think that's not good news.
You always can't make everyone satisfied. That's true. :-X
Can you let us know why they think this is bad news?
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
How about that:
(https://i.imgflip.com/e3c0v.jpg)
Actually some guys in Chinese QQ group think that's not good news.
You always can't make everyone satisfied. That's true. :-X
Can you let us know why they think this is bad news?
Everything is bad new.
I do not even like the sh** that I like.
I hope JoeyD has cut this for me ( and apparently more importantly others) on the mumble prediction bot. In the meantime the original:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulIOrQasR18
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
How about that:
(https://i.imgflip.com/e3c0v.jpg)
Actually some guys in Chinese QQ group think that's not good news.
You always can't make everyone satisfied. That's true. :-X
Can you let us know why they think this is bad news?
I would have to think it absolves them of any need to aid third party DACs that might have otherwise dropped to PTS.
-
(http://s22.postimg.org/dw2f4pfgx/grumpy_cat2.jpg)
-
(http://s22.postimg.org/dw2f4pfgx/grumpy_cat2.jpg)
Lol
-
Glad you liked it bytemaster. :)
-
(http://s22.postimg.org/dw2f4pfgx/grumpy_cat2.jpg)
And I gonna dump double hard if they don't give us our PTS back! >:(
:)
-
...
I would have to think it absolves them of any need to aid third party DACs that might have otherwise dropped to PTS.
You need to think bigger, Pinky... :)
(http://temdant.site.aplus.net/PinkyBrain/pinky18.jpg)
-
...
I would have to think it absolves them of any need to aid third party DACs that might have otherwise dropped to PTS.
You need to think bigger, Pinky... :)
(http://temdant.site.aplus.net/PinkyBrain/pinky18.jpg)
I'm not seeing it, but I don't care to carry on. Last night I ranted enough to get it out of my system for some time. In fact I ranted so much I don't recall most of it.. or perhaps I didn't rant enough.
Yes people can sharedrop to BTS but AlphaPTS will not likely use the Nov 5th snapshot after this. I'm not sure where all this is headed ..
-
...
I would have to think it absolves them of any need to aid third party DACs that might have otherwise dropped to PTS.
You need to think bigger, Pinky... :)
(http://temdant.site.aplus.net/PinkyBrain/pinky18.jpg)
I'm not seeing it, but I don't care to carry on. Last night I ranted enough to get it out of my system for some time. In fact I ranted so much I don't recall most of it.. or perhaps I didn't rant enough.
Yes people can sharedrop to BTS but AlphaPTS will not likely use the Nov 5th snapshot after this. I'm not sure where all this is headed ..
(http://i2.wp.com/petraplacement.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/chess-game-free-download.jpg)
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
Which is why I would prefer if I3 disclose of their motives for doing so - before someone not in the know makes up some FUD and spreads it as Truth
Yeah, I dislike all this mystery crap. Seems much better to avoid potential negative issues with full disclosure. If I3 /BM / Stan et al have good reasons then they haven't learned from previous mistakes of posting stuff like this in the forum. Hell I'm a huge fan and it raises one of my eyebrows.
It also feels like they're toying around (i.e. manipulating ??) with the community by withholding the reasons. Yet another thread that feels like a game of reality TV "Survivor".
This isn't FUD it's my rationality crying for more info to understand. Why do you post things like this and leave so many guessing? Does that instill a spirit of community? Doesn't it rather just serve to divide it? Just let fresh eyes look at this thread and see if they don't come away puzzled and questioning what BM & Stan are trying to do.
I'll say it again, I don't like mysterious threads like this!
-
You can never satisfy everyone in this community. I'm sure someone is going find something negative about this. ::)
Which is why I would prefer if I3 disclose of their motives for doing so - before someone not in the know makes up some FUD and spreads it as Truth
Yeah, I dislike all this mystery crap. Seems much better to avoid potential negative issues with full disclosure. If I3 /BM / Stan et al have good reasons then they haven't learned from previous mistakes of posting stuff like this in the forum. Hell I'm a huge fan and it raises one of my eyebrows.
It also feels like they're toying around (i.e. manipulating ??) with the community by withholding the reasons. Yet another thread that feels like a game of reality TV "Survivor".
This isn't FUD it's my rationality crying for more info to understand. Why do you post things like this and leave so many guessing? Does that instill a spirit of community? Doesn't it rather just serve to divide it? Just let fresh eyes look at this thread and see if they don't come away puzzled and questioning what BM & Stan are trying to do.
I'll say it again, I don't like mysterious threads like this!
I thought it was answered straight already... but:
If it is significantly tax beneficial for I3. (I am not I3 and I am not a tax expert, but that's what my personal tax experts tell me)
And every donor is geting his/her PTS back.
And alphaBar has his fair (aka mining distribution).
What other disclosure do you or anybody else needs?
-
I prefer to see it directly from I3, rather than through others' guesswork. Stan more or less confirmed what you said gamey but not in a direct way, and I fail to see why it wasn't stated more clearly in the OP.
I've made my point here, but I'll say it one last time: How does the manor of this communication help the community? It seems to me BM & Stan haven't yet learned their lesson about how not to stimulate a negative response through forum posts.
-
I prefer to see it directly from I3, rather than through others' guesswork. Stan more or less confirmed what you said gamey but not in a direct way, and I fail to see why it wasn't stated more clearly in the OP.
I've made my point here, but I'll say it one last time: How does the manor of this communication help the community? It seems to me BM & Stan haven't yet learned their lesson about how not to stimulate a negative response through forum posts.
I do not know (thanks for calling me gamey btw, real honor) but since when anybody is expected to comment on his tax moves (if the rest of the reasoning is self explanatory)?
-
Sorry 'bout that tonyk ???
I didn't any particular reason confirmed. In fact I got the distinct impression from BM's posts that wasn't the issue. And if it was, why bother posting the info this way?
This horse is dead and so am I for one day. Nighty night.
-
Good idea, I love PTS
-
Looking forward to PTS2.0 was born
-
Looking forward to PTS2.0 was born
You should be ;)
-
Unsurprisingly neither Dan nor Stan have yet given a plausible reason for this decision. Besides the obligatory memes they have yet failed to address suspicion.
You make a business decision that reeks of covering up fraud and decide to better not address the circumstances, but post funny pictures of cartoon characters instead?
Yet the brainwashed plus 5ers are content with the notion of 'free money'.
Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all, although suspicious decisions seem to basically be the backbone of Invictus' business plan.
-
I prefer to see it directly from I3, rather than through others' guesswork. Stan more or less confirmed what you said gamey but not in a direct way, and I fail to see why it wasn't stated more clearly in the OP.
Don't forget that it is a public forum... Our enemy’s are watching and would love to destroy us on a single failure we made...legal or not...
I think the majority (at least on this forum) can explain what are the reasons behind "every" decision is made... We are 4th place in market cap and we have just begun! Is that not convincing enough about decisions made by now(or at least motivating to give some credits)?
PS I miss Adam... (or should I not? ... Many alter-egos of him present here...)
-
Unsurprisingly neither Dan nor Stan have yet given a plausible reason for this decision. Besides the obligatory memes they have yet failed to address suspicion.
You make a business decision that reeks of covering up fraud and decide to better not address the circumstances, but post funny pictures of cartoon characters instead?
Yet the brainwashed plus 5ers are content with the notion of 'free money'.
Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all, although suspicious decisions seem to basically be the backbone of Invictus' business plan.
@Whatsgoingon
Why are you afraid to post with your primary account?
-
Unsurprisingly neither Dan nor Stan have yet given a plausible reason for this decision. Besides the obligatory memes they have yet failed to address suspicion.
You make a business decision that reeks of covering up fraud and decide to better not address the circumstances, but post funny pictures of cartoon characters instead?
Yet the brainwashed plus 5ers are content with the notion of 'free money'.
Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all, although suspicious decisions seem to basically be the backbone of Invictus' business plan.
There are a dozen good reasons and few downsides.
Perhaps you can make an argument on why we shouldn't.
-
Unsurprisingly neither Dan nor Stan have yet given a plausible reason for this decision. Besides the obligatory memes they have yet failed to address suspicion.
You make a business decision that reeks of covering up fraud and decide to better not address the circumstances, but post funny pictures of cartoon characters instead?
Yet the brainwashed plus 5ers are content with the notion of 'free money'.
Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all, although suspicious decisions seem to basically be the backbone of Invictus' business plan.
Perhaps you can make an argument on why we shouldn't.
good point!!! Pls can somebody explain me, what it's changing then? You got your stake etc. and now you can get your PTS back and *pls correct me, if i'm wrong* stakes in future DACs … and if this not you can sell it and buy more BTS ... so in my opinion a WIN-WIN …
Just my 2 cents... and pls correct me if i'm thinking wrong with this ... thx
-
Unsurprisingly neither Dan nor Stan have yet given a plausible reason for this decision. Besides the obligatory memes they have yet failed to address suspicion.
You make a business decision that reeks of covering up fraud and decide to better not address the circumstances, but post funny pictures of cartoon characters instead?
Yet the brainwashed plus 5ers are content with the notion of 'free money'.
Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all, although suspicious decisions seem to basically be the backbone of Invictus' business plan.
There are a dozen good reasons and few downsides.
Perhaps you can make an argument on why we shouldn't.
This a lame proposition. YOU should be the one to explain yourself BM, you made the claim.
AND WHY THE FUCK ONE CAN'T a n y o n e ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF UNITING / DIVIDING THE COMMUNITY WITH POSTS LIKE THIS????????????????????????????????????
Look, I'm a strong advocate of I3 / BM / Stan, but they have said NOTHING here that instills my confidence they know what they're doing in posting nebulous stuff like the OP. It DOES NOT serve the community at large.
If it was necessary to disclose to PTS owners I3 was going to gift them their contributions back, there are far better ways to do than this. If I were a PTS holder I might even see a case for them disrespecting my donation by returning it.
STOP THE VAUGE COMMUNICATION TO YOUR SUPPORTERS!
Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all...
I agree with your first sentence, your post is ridiculous. Obviously you haven't been reading this thread much.
-
...aren't the main reasons to do this because I3 no longer has any association to PTS, and they don't want to be a controlling holder of a currency they no longer support, and it offers a better distribution of PTS for AlphaBar or whoever to go ahead and try and revive?
Makes sense to me, not sure what's with all the anger and "community suspicion" etc going on here...
-
I still don't see how PTS 2.0 can make any sense/have any value.
This decision seem to both enable PTS 2.0 (no more huge stake of I3 that would have too much voting power) and undermine it (the new PTS 2.0 must now be post november 5th snapshot, which does not represent well the real founders anymore, since many PTS were sold - or is that false ?).
I hope that the real reasons behind this will be revealed soon, as well as the reasons behind the form of this murky revelation : playing the interpretation game is a waste of time, and this thread gives a very bad impression.
-
If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite real reason
the suspicious would then reason
we had some other reason.
...and we would be right back to this same place again.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp
-
If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite reason
the suspicious would still reason
there was some other reason.
...and we would be right back to this same place again.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp
Very true Stan, but you have failed to provide ANY reason whatsoever, leaving the community to guess your motives and purpose. clear communication at least allows your supporters to have a firm platform of facts to dispense with any contrary claims. This is what I mean by you guys not learning your lesson.
You should study the trivium and Aristotelian logic to understand this and know when you're stepping into the world of sophism.
-
If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite reason
the suspicious would still reason
there was some other reason.
...and we would be right back to this same place again.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp
Very true Stan, but you have failed to provide ANY reason whatsoever, leaving the community to guess your motives and purpose. clear communication at least allows your supporters to have a firm platform of facts to dispense with any contrary claims. This is what I mean by you guys not learning your lesson.
You should study the trivium and Aristotelian logic to understand this and know when you're stepping into the world of sophism.
That's not true, BM has already stated that the attempt to regrow PTS had merit. This was not possible with a single stakeholder of that size using DPOS. This is reason enough.
-
The motivation is more important than the form in talking.
After tracking with the BTS project for a long time, I personally wish to believe 3I has good motivation to make decisions.
Therefore, although it may be not perfect in the style of statement ,it would be ok ultimately.
-
If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite reason
the suspicious would still reason
there was some other reason.
...and we would be right back to this same place again.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp
Very true Stan, but you have failed to provide ANY reason whatsoever, leaving the community to guess your motives and purpose. clear communication at least allows your supporters to have a firm platform of facts to dispense with any contrary claims. This is what I mean by you guys not learning your lesson.
You should study the trivium and Aristotelian logic to understand this and know when you're stepping into the world of sophism.
That's not true, BM has already stated that the attempt to regrow PTS had merit. This was not possible with a single stakeholder of that size using DPOS. This is reason enough.
Sorry Ben, but nothing I said was untrue. I am not saying I'm against the decision at all. Your "assuming" what the reasons are. I'm only asking for clear communication rather than ambiguity and community guesswork. That's no way to lead. It just isn't good for the reasons I've stated that STILL REMAIN unchallenged or even addressed.
I tell you what, I'll be hanging out on mumble if anyone cares to discuss this rationally.
-
I tell you what, I'll be hanging out on mumble if anyone cares to discuss this rationally.
It would be rational to assume that we have rational reasons for everything we say or don't say.
-
If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite reason
the suspicious would still reason
there was some other reason.
...and we would be right back to this same place again.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp
Very true Stan, but you have failed to provide ANY reason whatsoever, leaving the community to guess your motives and purpose. clear communication at least allows your supporters to have a firm platform of facts to dispense with any contrary claims. This is what I mean by you guys not learning your lesson.
You should study the trivium and Aristotelian logic to understand this and know when you're stepping into the world of sophism.
That's not true, BM has already stated that the attempt to regrow PTS had merit. This was not possible with a single stakeholder of that size using DPOS. This is reason enough.
Sorry Ben, but nothing I said was untrue. I am not saying I'm against the decision at all. Your "assuming" what the reasons are. I'm only asking for clear communication rather than ambiguity and community guesswork. That's no way to lead. It just isn't good for the reasons I've stated that STILL REMAIN unchallenged or even addressed.
I tell you what, I'll be hanging out on mumble if anyone cares to discuss this rationally.
Ok. I've been able to reach my own conclusions, right or wrong, based on what has been posted in the forum about this subject. That is not the case for everyone and understandably so....and communications can always be improved.
I just find myself feeling a little frustrated at the speed with which suspicion and anger seems to appear. They have earned our trust over and over. I accept you are trying to highlight the communication part.
I'm listening to your 'The Truth About World War I: The Hidden History' link.........very interesting
-
I'm not a US citizen, not an accountant, not a lawyer...
By returning the "gift", would that be treated as a NOP by the IRS and therefore no tax liability?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_in_the_United_States
-
I generally agree with you Stan, but in the face of last October's foopa of BM's merger post that set the community on edge and generally made a mess, your request to simply "have faith" in your posts here is like asking people to shut off their brain and stop thinking.
You would be wise to note the negative comments here and discard those that are simply nay saying FUD and those which are expressing a genuine concern for your continued style of communication that harkens back to October.
Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.
I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your PTS refund, only asking why and why this way. But it seems my point is being ignored and my expression is falling on deaf ears.
I don't want to be identified with the nay sayers and FUD slingers, I'm not in their camp. But I will not sit silent and "go with the flow" when I see something that troubles me or I believe is contrary to helping with our joint mission here. I'm an ally not an adversary and I've made my case. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it doesn't help your mission to alienate people when there's no good reason to.
-
I generally agree with you Stan, but in the face of last October's foopa of BM's merger post that set the community on edge and generally made a mess, your request to simply "have faith" in your posts here is like asking people to shut off their brain and stop thinking.
You would be wise to note the negative comments here and discard those that are simply nay saying FUD and those which are expressing a genuine concern for your continued style of communication that harkens back to October.
Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.
I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your PTS refund, only asking why and why this way. But it seems my point is being ignored and my expression is falling on deaf ears.
I don't want to be identified with the nay sayers and FUD slingers, I'm not in their camp. But I will not sit silent and "go with the flow" when I see something that troubles me or I believe is contrary to helping with our joint mission here. I'm an ally not an adversary and I've made my case. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it doesn't help your mission to alienate people when there's no good reason to.
+5% Its human nature to be suspicious of someone who's trying to give you something for free. This is default biological behavior.
-
I'm not a US citizen, not an accountant, not a lawyer...
By returning the "gift", would that be treated as a NOP by the IRS and therefore no tax liability?
I still don't see how PTS 2.0 can make any sense/have any value.
This decision seem to both enable PTS 2.0 (no more huge stake of I3 that would have too much voting power) and undermine it (the new PTS 2.0 must now be post november 5th snapshot, which does not represent well the real founders anymore, since many PTS were sold - or is that false ?).
I hope that the real reasons behind this will be revealed soon, as well as the reasons behind the form of this murky revelation : playing the interpretation game is a waste of time, and this thread gives a very bad impression.
Real reasons? What kind of evil conspiracy could this represent? They have already said that no government agencies have contacted them thus this is not being forced on them.
One can easily read between the lines and see that this is being done for tax purposes. If they return the funds this year and reject the donations thereby rescinding the transactions then the result is to declare any and all contract between PTS donors and Invictus void as well as to make the transaction nonexistent for tax purposes. If they keep the funds then they either have to spend them or pay taxes on their receipt.
The IRS didn't publish their guidance until after AGS was started. According to IRS guidelines income from virtual currency payments is taxed at the value it had upon receipt. If I3 had originally planned to treat PTS/BTC as a currency then these guidelines would have changed how profit, income, and expenses would be calculated. Treated as a currency I3 would only have income equal to the present value of the PTS (a couple hundred thousand dollars). Under this new IRS treatment I3 would face an income tax bill based upon a $3+ million valuation of PTS at the time it was given which could not be offset by the capital loss.
Rescinding the PTS transactions moves the capital loss from I3 back to the donors and removes $3+ million worth of fantom-income from I3's balance sheet. The donors can use the capital loss from PTS to offset the capital gains from BTSX, DNS, Play, etc which have a cost basis of 0.
They were probably advised that if they kept the donations and the IRS declared them income to I3 they would have to pay 35% tax on the value of the donations at the time they were received. They clearly couldn't pay a $1 million tax bill by selling the PTS they have. Refusing to accept the donation is the only thing they could possibly do.
I3 also has about $3 million worth of income from BTC which they will have to pay taxes on if it is not spent in 2014 on business expenses. I suspect this is a large motivating factor for giving the development team large end-of-year bonuses. The developers will still have to pay taxes on the income, but it won't be double taxed. Almost all companies with large profits end up doing this kind of thing at the end of the year.
Looking at the public BTC balances it looks like I3 is on track to spend all of the BTC they received this year. My guess is that they will end up spending a total of $3 million on deductible expenses by Dec. 31st which will completely offset the value of the BTC donations. Any capital losses they incurred from BTC falling will offset capital gains made on BTSX that they have spent.
Assuming they are working with a world class accounting firm they have likely legally organized themselves in such a way as to pay little or no corporate income tax on the donations they received.
After racking my head about what would motivate them to give back all of the PTS this is the clear open and shut case. It is also clear that if this is the reason, those who gave PTS would clearly support rescinding the donation. I could be completely wrong.
This theory also explains the push to enable dilution to fund development. I3 has burned through the donations. This probably happened because BTC fell 50% and I3 was budgeting on the original value and not the present value of BTC. So while they raised $3 million in BTC they were only able to buy about $2 million in development and had to burn through $1 million worth of the BTSX they were given to avoid a $350,000 tax bill they would be unable to pay without dumping BTSX on the market.
Some may look at this explanation and assume I3 has mismanaged their development fund to run out in 1 year. In my opinion they have done a great job managing the funds and have produced $50 million worth of value based upon $3 million dollars worth of R&D in just 1 year while securing the long term future for BTS at the same time.
The IRS has effectively forced all businesses accepting crypto-currencies to liquidate immediately because otherwise they could face income taxes on the value at the time of receipt and be unable to offset that income with capital losses. A very sly move by the IRS that effectively kills using crypto as a currency to actually buy things.
-
Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.
I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.
I have the same feeling in this point with Thom.
It would be better if we can avoid ambiguous statements when we are trying to announce something important.
-
+5%
Real reasons? What kind of evil conspiracy could this represent? They have already said that no government agencies have contacted them thus this is not being forced on them.
One can easily read between the lines and see that this is being done for tax purposes.
-
Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.
I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.
I have the same feeling in this point with Thom.
It would be better if we can avoid ambiguous statements when we are trying to announce something important.
Ever think that accountants and lawyers demand I3 be careful about how much they say? Ever think that one wrong word could cause more trouble than leaving it ambiguous?
I am sure they want to tell us everything clearly.
-
I'm not a US citizen, not an accountant, not a lawyer...
By returning the "gift", would that be treated as a NOP by the IRS and therefore no tax liability?
I still don't see how PTS 2.0 can make any sense/have any value.
This decision seem to both enable PTS 2.0 (no more huge stake of I3 that would have too much voting power) and undermine it (the new PTS 2.0 must now be post november 5th snapshot, which does not represent well the real founders anymore, since many PTS were sold - or is that false ?).
I hope that the real reasons behind this will be revealed soon, as well as the reasons behind the form of this murky revelation : playing the interpretation game is a waste of time, and this thread gives a very bad impression.
Real reasons? What kind of evil conspiracy could this represent? They have already said that no government agencies have contacted them thus this is not being forced on them.
One can easily read between the lines and see that this is being done for tax purposes. If they return the funds this year and reject the donations thereby rescinding the transactions then the result is to declare any and all contract between PTS donors and Invictus void as well as to make the transaction nonexistent for tax purposes. If they keep the funds then they either have to spend them or pay taxes on their receipt.
The IRS didn't publish their guidance until after AGS was started. According to IRS guidelines income from virtual currency payments is taxed at the value it had upon receipt. If I3 had originally planned to treat PTS/BTC as a currency then these guidelines would have changed how profit, income, and expenses would be calculated. Treated as a currency I3 would only have income equal to the present value of the PTS (a couple hundred thousand dollars). Under this new IRS treatment I3 would face an income tax bill based upon a $3+ million valuation of PTS at the time it was given which could not be offset by the capital loss.
Rescinding the PTS transactions moves the capital loss from I3 back to the donors and removes $3+ million worth of fantom-income from I3's balance sheet. The donors can use the capital loss from PTS to offset the capital gains from BTSX, DNS, Play, etc which have a cost basis of 0.
They were probably advised that if they kept the donations and the IRS declared them income to I3 they would have to pay 35% tax on the value of the donations at the time they were received. They clearly couldn't pay a $1 million tax bill by selling the PTS they have. Refusing to accept the donation is the only thing they could possibly do.
I3 also has about $3 million worth of income from BTC which they will have to pay taxes on if it is not spent in 2014 on business expenses. I suspect this is a large motivating factor for giving the development team large end-of-year bonuses. The developers will still have to pay taxes on the income, but it won't be double taxed. Almost all companies with large profits end up doing this kind of thing at the end of the year.
Looking at the public BTC balances it looks like I3 is on track to spend all of the BTC they received this year. My guess is that they will end up spending a total of $3 million on deductible expenses by Dec. 31st which will completely offset the value of the BTC donations. Any capital losses they incurred from BTC falling will offset capital gains made on BTSX that they have spent.
Assuming they are working with a world class accounting firm they have likely legally organized themselves in such a way as to pay little or no corporate income tax on the donations they received.
After racking my head about what would motivate them to give back all of the PTS this is the clear open and shut case. It is also clear that if this is the reason, those who gave PTS would clearly support rescinding the donation. I could be completely wrong.
This theory also explains the push to enable dilution to fund development. I3 has burned through the donations. This probably happened because BTC fell 50% and I3 was budgeting on the original value and not the present value of BTC. So while they raised $3 million in BTC they were only able to buy about $2 million in development and had to burn through $1 million worth of the BTSX they were given to avoid a $350,000 tax bill they would be unable to pay without dumping BTSX on the market.
Some may look at this explanation and assume I3 has mismanaged their development fund to run out in 1 year. In my opinion they have done a great job managing the funds and have produced $50 million worth of value based upon $3 million dollars worth of R&D in just 1 year while securing the long term future for BTS at the same time.
The IRS has effectively forced all businesses accepting crypto-currencies to liquidate immediately because otherwise they could face income taxes on the value at the time of receipt and be unable to offset that income with capital losses. A very sly move by the IRS that effectively kills using crypto as a currency to actually buy things.
+5% +5% +5%
make sense to me...
-
Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.
I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.
I have the same feeling in this point with Thom.
It would be better if we can avoid ambiguous statements when we are trying to announce something important.
Ever think that accountants and lawyers demand I3 be careful about how much they say? Ever think that one wrong word could cause more trouble than leaving it ambiguous?
I am sure they want to tell us everything clearly.
+5%
-
Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.
I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.
I have the same feeling in this point with Thom.
It would be better if we can avoid ambiguous statements when we are trying to announce something important.
Ever think that accountants and lawyers demand I3 be careful about how much they say? Ever think that one wrong word could cause more trouble than leaving it ambiguous?
I am sure they want to tell us everything clearly.
Thanks for the reminding.
But, I think we are talking different aspects about how to make a good statement to community.
:)
-
I generally agree with you Stan, but in the face of last October's foopa of BM's merger post that set the community on edge and generally made a mess, your request to simply "have faith" in your posts here is like asking people to shut off their brain and stop thinking.
You would be wise to note the negative comments here and discard those that are simply nay saying FUD and those which are expressing a genuine concern for your continued style of communication that harkens back to October.
Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.
I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your PTS refund, only asking why and why this way. But it seems my point is being ignored and my expression is falling on deaf ears.
I don't want to be identified with the nay sayers and FUD slingers, I'm not in their camp. But I will not sit silent and "go with the flow" when I see something that troubles me or I believe is contrary to helping with our joint mission here. I'm an ally not an adversary and I've made my case. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it doesn't help your mission to alienate people when there's no good reason to.
Let's assume we have three equally smart people.
Two of them know all of the facts of the situation.
One of them doesn't.
Who should make the decisions about what statements to make in a public forum read by people with many different agendas?
:)
-
Thank you stevejobsghost, a very satisfactory analysis :)
-
One can easily read between the lines...
Assuming they are working with...
After racking my head about what would motivate them to give back all of the PTS this is the clear open and shut case. It is also clear that if this is the reason, those who gave PTS would clearly support rescinding the donation. I could be completely wrong.
This theory...
Mr. ghost, your analysis looks thorough and your theory seem quite reasonable. If it is true did they need to post this thread at all? I don't think so. In doing so they ran the risk of injecting speculation and uncertainty into the community, at least with the ambiguous manor they posted. As I stated earlier, there are better ways to inform the PTS donators of the refund, if that was even necessary (it probably was, even if only for courtesy).
And what harm would there be to disclose the reasons, if your theory is correct?
They could have disclosed the refund in another thread, still public, still on this forum but in a less visible location. It's just not a good example of wisdom imo, and I couple it with the lack of wisdom used with the merger post. I would like to see them get wiser, but my confidence in this area is still weak. I'm not seeing the vetting / scrutiny of potential problematic posts we were promised last month in the wake of the merger announcement.
I do have hope however, as I still trust in the principles they have publicly stated on many occasions.
-
Real reasons? What kind of evil conspiracy could this represent? They have already said that no government agencies have contacted them thus this is not being forced on them.
The conspiracy is not about the PTS, the conspiracy is about why Dan and Stan have chosen to communicate in a shitty, vague and ambiguous manner.
Edit: This style would be ok if they were trying to tease a slick new feature in development - not for notifications where there are potential legal ramifications
-
The IRS has effectively forced all businesses accepting crypto-currencies to liquidate immediately because otherwise they could face income taxes on the value at the time of receipt and be unable to offset that income with capital losses. A very sly move by the IRS that effectively kills using crypto as a currency to actually buy things.
Yes. Heh. Very sly. Except it won't work against fiendishly stable BitAssets!
-
Because time is a factor most of the time. It would great for them to layout the case every time, let everyone debate then come to a conclusion. But sometimes their isn't enough time to do that. Also, it can be informative to see what conclusion ppl come to when they don't have all the facts. There are legal and economic reasons why some things can't be disclosed in a public forum. As has been mentioned before, there are alot of ppl who view this forum that don't have BitShares interest at heart. I don't expect every decision they make to be perfect, but I do believe they have everyone interest in mind as best as be be possible and when a mistakes do happen the are flexible enough to recognise them make solutions.
-
The IRS has effectively forced all businesses accepting crypto-currencies to liquidate immediately because otherwise they could face income taxes on the value at the time of receipt and be unable to offset that income with capital losses. A very sly move by the IRS that effectively kills using crypto as a currency to actually buy things.
Yes. Heh. Very sly. Except it won't work against fiendishly stable BitAssets!
Nice .... Anyone know where I can find the detail of this new rule from IRS ?
It's a huge news for pegged assets .
-
I did not read through 10 pages of posts but aren't the Bitshares-PTS pretty much worthless even if returned?
-
The IRS has effectively forced all businesses accepting crypto-currencies to liquidate immediately because otherwise they could face income taxes on the value at the time of receipt and be unable to offset that income with capital losses. A very sly move by the IRS that effectively kills using crypto as a currency to actually buy things.
Yes. Heh. Very sly. Except it won't work against fiendishly stable BitAssets!
Nice .... Anyone know where I can find the detail of this new rule from IRS ?
It's a huge news for pegged assets .
IRS Notices,Notice 2014-21,Internal Revenue Service,(Mar. 25, 2014)
Notice 2014-21, I.R.B. 2014-16, March 25, 2014.
[ Code Secs. 83, 1000, 1221, 1402 and 6041 and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5330]
Property transactions: Virtual currency: Frequently asked questions: Information reporting: Sales and exchanges: Capital assets: Self-employment tax: Independent contractors: Withholding: Payroll taxes.–
The IRS has issued guidance providing answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ) about virtual currency. Bitcoin is an example of such currency. The FAQ provides basic information on the tax implications of transactions in, or using, virtual currency. In some circumstances, virtual currency operates like actual currency, but it lacks legal tender status in any jurisdiction. Virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes, and is governed by the same general principles that apply to property transactions generally. For example, wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer of a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding. Back references: ¶6390.25, ¶6390.54, ¶6390.72, ¶29,225.1038, ¶30,422.56, ¶32,578.17, ¶35,836.30 and ¶36,555.36.
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This notice describes how existing general tax principles apply to transactions using virtual currency. The notice provides this guidance in the form of answers to frequently asked questions.
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is aware that “virtual currency” may be used to pay for goods or services, or held for investment. Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value. In some environments, it operates like “real” currency — i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance — but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.
Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency, or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as “convertible” virtual currency. Bitcoin is one example of a convertible virtual currency. Bitcoin can be digitally traded between users and can be purchased for, or exchanged into, U.S. dollars, Euros, and other real or virtual currencies. For a more comprehensive description of convertible virtual currencies to date, see Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Guidance on the Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies (FIN-2013-G001, March 18, 2013).
SECTION 3. SCOPE
In general, the sale or exchange of convertible virtual currency, or the use of convertible virtual currency to pay for goods or services in a real-world economy transaction, has tax consequences that may result in a tax liability. This notice addresses only the U.S. federal tax consequences of transactions in, or transactions that use, convertible virtual currency, and the term “virtual currency” as used in Section 4 refers only to convertible virtual currency. No inference should be drawn with respect to virtual currencies not described in this notice.
The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that there may be other questions regarding the tax consequences of virtual currency not addressed in this notice that warrant consideration. Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS request comments from the public regarding other types or aspects of virtual currency transactions that should be addressed in future guidance.
Comments should be addressed to:
Internal Revenue Service
Attn: CC:PA:LPD:PR ( Notice 2014-21)
Room 5203
P.O. Box 7604
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
or hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 A.M. and 4 P.M. to:
Courier's Desk
Internal Revenue Service
Attn: CC:PA:LPD:PR ( Notice 2014-21)
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20224
Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via e-mail to the following address: Notice.Comments@irscounsel.treas.gov. Taxpayers should include “ Notice 2014-21” in the subject line. All comments submitted by the public will be available for public inspection and copying in their entirety.
For purposes of the FAQs in this notice, the taxpayer's functional currency is assumed to be the U.S. dollar, the taxpayer is assumed to use the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting and the taxpayer is assumed not to be under common control with any other party to a transaction.
SECTION 4. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes?
A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.
Q-2: Is virtual currency treated as currency for purposes of determining whether a transaction results in foreign currency gain or loss under U.S. federal tax laws?
A-2: No. Under currently applicable law, virtual currency is not treated as currency that could generate foreign currency gain or loss for U.S. federal tax purposes.
Q-3: Must a taxpayer who receives virtual currency as payment for goods or services include in computing gross income the fair market value of the virtual currency?
A-3: Yes. A taxpayer who receives virtual currency as payment for goods or services must, in computing gross income, include the fair market value of the virtual currency, measured in U.S. dollars, as of the date that the virtual currency was received. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on miscellaneous income from exchanges involving property or services.
Q-4: What is the basis of virtual currency received as payment for goods or services in Q&A-3?
A-4: The basis of virtual currency that a taxpayer receives as payment for goods or services in Q&A-3 is the fair market value of the virtual currency in U.S. dollars as of the date of receipt. See Publication 551, Basis of Assets, for more information on the computation of basis when property is received for goods or services.
Q-5: How is the fair market value of virtual currency determined?
A-5: For U.S. tax purposes, transactions using virtual currency must be reported in U.S. dollars. Therefore, taxpayers will be required to determine the fair market value of virtual currency in U.S. dollars as of the date of payment or receipt. If a virtual currency is listed on an exchange and the exchange rate is established by market supply and demand, the fair market value of the virtual currency is determined by converting the virtual currency into U.S. dollars (or into another real currency which in turn can be converted into U.S. dollars) at the exchange rate, in a reasonable manner that is consistently applied.
Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property?
A-6: Yes. If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer's adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency. See Publication 544, Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets, for information about the tax treatment of sales and exchanges, such as whether a loss is deductible.
Q-7: What type of gain or loss does a taxpayer realize on the sale or exchange of virtual currency?
A-7: The character of the gain or loss generally depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer. A taxpayer generally realizes capital gain or loss on the sale or exchange of virtual currency that is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer. For example, stocks, bonds, and other investment property are generally capital assets. A taxpayer generally realizes ordinary gain or loss on the sale or exchange of virtual currency that is not a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer. Inventory and other property held mainly for sale to customers in a trade or business are examples of property that is not a capital asset. See Publication 544 for more information about capital assets and the character of gain or loss.
Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities?
A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income.
Q-9: Is an individual who “mines” virtual currency as a trade or business subject to self-employment tax on the income derived from those activities?
A-9: If a taxpayer's “mining” of virtual currency constitutes a trade or business, and the “mining” activity is not undertaken by the taxpayer as an employee, the net earnings from self-employment (generally, gross income derived from carrying on a trade or business less allowable deductions) resulting from those activities constitute self-employment income and are subject to the self-employment tax. See Chapter 10 of Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business, for more information on self-employment tax and Publication 535, Business Expenses, for more information on determining whether expenses are from a business activity carried on to make a profit.
Q-10: Does virtual currency received by an independent contractor for performing services constitute self-employment income?
A-10: Yes. Generally, self-employment income includes all gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by the individual as other than an employee. Consequently, the fair market value of virtual currency received for services performed as an independent contractor, measured in U.S. dollars as of the date of receipt, constitutes self-employment income and is subject to the self-employment tax. See FS-2007-18, April 2007, Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions, for information on determining whether an activity is a business or a hobby.
Q-11: Does virtual currency paid by an employer as remuneration for services constitute wages for employment tax purposes?
A-11: Yes. Generally, the medium in which remuneration for services is paid is immaterial to the determination of whether the remuneration constitutes wages for employment tax purposes. Consequently, the fair market value of virtual currency paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. See Publication 15 (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide, for information on the withholding, depositing, reporting, and paying of employment taxes.
Q-12: Is a payment made using virtual currency subject to information reporting?
A-12: A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property. For example, a person who in the course of a trade or business makes a payment of fixed and determinable income using virtual currency with a value of $600 or more to a U.S. non-exempt recipient in a taxable year is required to report the payment to the IRS and to the payee. Examples of payments of fixed and determinable income include rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, and compensation.
Q-13: Is a person who in the course of a trade or business makes a payment using virtual currency worth $600 or more to an independent contractor for performing services required to file an information return with the IRS?
A-13: Generally, a person who in the course of a trade or business makes a payment of $600 or more in a taxable year to an independent contractor for the performance of services is required to report that payment to the IRS and to the payee on Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income. Payments of virtual currency required to be reported on Form 1099-MISC should be reported using the fair market value of the virtual currency in U.S. dollars as of the date of payment. The payment recipient may have income even if the recipient does not receive a Form 1099-MISC. See the Instructions to Form 1099-MISC and the General Instructions for Certain Information Returns for more information. For payments to non-U.S. persons, see Publication 515, Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities.
Q-14: Are payments made using virtual currency subject to backup withholding?
A-14: Payments made using virtual currency are subject to backup withholding to the same extent as other payments made in property. Therefore, payors making reportable payments using virtual currency must solicit a taxpayer identification number (TIN) from the payee. The payor must backup withhold from the payment if a TIN is not obtained prior to payment or if the payor receives notification from the IRS that backup withholding is required. See Publication 1281, Backup Withholding for Missing and Incorrect Name/TINs, for more information .
Q-15: Are there IRS information reporting requirements for a person who settles payments made in virtual currency on behalf of merchants that accept virtual currency from their customers?
A-15: Yes, if certain requirements are met. In general, a third party that contracts with a substantial number of unrelated merchants to settle payments between the merchants and their customers is a third party settlement organization (TPSO). A TPSO is required to report payments made to a merchant on a Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third Party Network Transactions, if, for the calendar year, both (1) the number of transactions settled for the merchant exceeds 200, and (2) the gross amount of payments made to the merchant exceeds $20,000. When completing Boxes 1, 3, and 5a-1 on the Form 1099-K, transactions where the TPSO settles payments made with virtual currency are aggregated with transactions where the TPSO settles payments made with real currency to determine the total amounts to be reported in those boxes. When determining whether the transactions are reportable, the value of the virtual currency is the fair market value of the virtual currency in U.S. dollars on the date of payment.
See The Third Party Information Reporting Center, http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/Third-Party-Reporting-Information-Center, for more information on reporting transactions on Form 1099-K.
Q-16: Will taxpayers be subject to penalties for having treated a virtual currency transaction in a manner that is inconsistent with this notice prior to March 25, 2014?
A-16: Taxpayers may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with tax laws. For example, underpayments attributable to virtual currency transactions may be subject to penalties, such as accuracy-related penalties under section 6662. In addition, failure to timely or correctly report virtual currency transactions when required to do so may be subject to information reporting penalties under section 6721 and 6722. However, penalty relief may be available to taxpayers and persons required to file an information return who are able to establish that the underpayment or failure to properly file information returns is due to reasonable cause.
SECTION 5. DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this notice is Keith A. Aqui of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). For further information about income tax issues addressed in this notice, please contact Mr. Aqui at (202) 317-4718; for further information about employment tax issues addressed in this notice, please contact Mr. Neil D. Shepherd at (202) 317- 4774; for further information about information reporting issues addressed in this notice, please contact Ms. Adrienne E. Griffin at (202) 317- 6845; and for further information regarding foreign currency issues addressed in this notice, please contact Mr. Raymond J. Stahl at (202) 317- 6938. These are not toll-free calls.
-
Looks like the returns are now being processed...
https://coinplorer.com/PTS/Addresses/PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw