BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Method-X on October 20, 2014, 07:22:22 pm
-
a) Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin with the intention of it being decentralized digital gold. Gold 2.0.
b) Daniel Larimer created Bitshares with the intention of it being a decentralized autonomous company. Shares 2.0.
Deflation (or controlled inflation) makes sense if you're trying to be a decentralized global currency like Bitcoin. But what if you're trying to reimagine what a company is?
FACT: "Regular" centralized companies issue new shares to facilitate growth all the time. For a Decentralized Autonomous Company to compete with a centralized corporation, it MUST have the ability to issue new shares or it can never hope to compete. If it comes down to a centralized corporation vs. a DAC, the centralized corp will always win because it has the ability to fund its own growth.
In Dans latest proposal, shareholders must reach a majority consensus through voting before new shares can be issued. This makes complete sense if we want DACs to be self funding and competitive with real world corporations. If we as a community don't get behind the idea of delegated share issuance, the whole concept of a DAC is dead on arrival.
Let's completely embrace the share 2.0 metaphor and get on with changing the world.
-
Agree 100%.
-
Yes, Nice and simpele metaphor +5%
-
This has my vote (PTS, AGS, btsx, DNS holder)
-
Remember it must also be decentralized.
Also the same argument you're making for corporations to dilute is the exact argument governments make for why they must have inflation. Be aware that the DAC can substitute for a corporation or a country.
These delegates are also the board of directors. I'm not against having monetary policy flexibility to do whatever is necessary for the survival of the chain but I don't think it should happen just because 20 or so guys in a hangout decide it should happen.
There should be a process where a proposal is formally presented, it should be debated, and then only ratified it gets a super-majority of 75% of the vote. It should be very hard to dilute the shares and so far Bytemaster and others haven't given good enough reasons.
So while it's a capability to have in the toolbox it doesn't seem like Invictus is out of money. If Invictus isn't out of money then why do they need to borrow money from shareholders? Dilution is a loan from the network to whoever receives the buying power.
-
Remember it must also be decentralized.
Also the same argument you're making for corporations to dilute is the exact argument governments make for why they must have inflation. Be aware that the DAC can substitute for a corporation or a country.
These delegates are also the board of directors. I'm not against having monetary policy flexibility to do whatever is necessary for the survival of the chain but I don't think it should happen just because 20 or so guys in a hangout decide it should happen.
There should be a process where a proposal is formally presented, it should be debated, and then only ratified it gets a super-majority of 75% of the vote. It should be very hard to dilute the shares and so far Bytemaster and others haven't given good enough reasons.
So while it's a capability to have in the toolbox it doesn't seem like Invictus is out of money. If Invictus isn't out of money then why do they need to borrow money from shareholders? Dilution is a loan from the network to whoever receives the buying power.
It will only happen if a majority of stakeholders decide for it to happen. I3 has no authority to implement it, it will only be the voted delegates that hold the power to do it.
-
a) Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin with the intention of it being decentralized digital gold. Gold 2.0.
b) Daniel Larimer created Bitshares with the intention of it being a decentralized autonomous company. Shares 2.0. Oh yeah, and on the side he also created Gold 3.0 (BitGLD).
FTFY :D
-
I have contrasting views that suggest a properly planned hybrid is possible. A DAC that operates within the framework of a digital gold because what it loses in adaptability it gains in the confidence & certainty it provides to investors, supporters and customers in the crypto-currency space.
You don't have to worry about the framework changing at the whim of majority shareholders.
Humans on average as individuals and almost always when acting as a group make inferior decisions which maximise their perceived short term gain in exchange for excessive long term pain, minimising the advantage flexible companies, currencies and countries have over less flexible competitors. (Which is why the average Western human is overweight, in debt and their currencies, companies and countries are on the edge of darkness.)
However in the context of BitShares I fully support the latest proposal for dilution and a single BitShares :)
-
Clear and simple way to communicate things is a gift. Thank you MeTHoDx for using this gift and sharing it with forum users.
-
Remember it must also be decentralized.
I believe the intention is to allow for share issuance in a decentralized way.
Also the same argument you're making for corporations to dilute is the exact argument governments make for why they must have inflation. Be aware that the DAC can substitute for a corporation or a country.
I do see shares as having more in common with fiat than say, gold. Most people against dilution have that view because they're stuck in the coin paradigm. Deflationary shares don't make a whole lot of sense because it drastically limits growth. I guess the question is what's the difference between a company's shares, fiat currency and a deflationary commodity like gold.
These delegates are also the board of directors. I'm not against having monetary policy flexibility to do whatever is necessary for the survival of the chain but I don't think it should happen just because 20 or so guys in a hangout decide it should happen.
Agree.
There should be a process where a proposal is formally presented, it should be debated, and then only ratified it gets a super-majority of 75% of the vote. It should be very hard to dilute the shares and so far Bytemaster and others haven't given good enough reasons.
Agree. I think Dan wants to future proof Bitshares. i.e. What it the SEC freezes Invictus' assets? It's good to have this mechanism in place.
So while it's a capability to have in the toolbox it doesn't seem like Invictus is out of money. If Invictus isn't out of money then why do they need to borrow money from shareholders? Dilution is a loan from the network to whoever receives the buying power.
Other than the AGS/PTS/BTSX merger, I don't think they plan on issuing any new shares until it's absolutely necessary.
-
+100% - The sooner the better.
-
nice OP! +5% ...
another metaphor for later ..
Once a subdivision matures and can stand on it's own we can have a spin off as mentioned briefly by BM in the recent hangout .. having parallel chains with the same board of directors :)
-
This might be one for the stupid questions thread.
But since it's a DAC, anybody can come up with a dilution proposal right?
It doesn't necessarily have to be Invictus issuing new shares, as long as they get enough votes.
-
This might be one for the stupid questions thread.
But since it's a DAC, anybody can come up with a dilution proposal right?
It doesn't necessarily have to be Invictus issuing new shares, as long as they get enough votes.
Yes
-
But since it's a DAC, anybody can come up with a dilution proposal right?
It doesn't necessarily have to be Invictus issuing new shares, as long as they get enough votes.
From what I know this should be the case ... and better will be
-
I am not sure.. Share 2.0 I like it on some level, but not sold. Share is ambiguous and means something else by default. You've removed any context. However I am not sure this type of confusion is bad ?
I had a similar discussion with others .. What should this dilution/inflation be called? Definitely not inflation for obvious reasons. So the 2 ideas put up were
dilution
stake issuance
Thoughts on that ? Issuance is a weird word. "Issuing stake" ?
-
I am not sure.. Share 2.0 I like it on some level, but not sold. Share is ambiguous and means something else by default. You've removed any context. However I am not sure this type of confusion is bad ?
I had a similar discussion with others .. What should this dilution/inflation be called? Definitely not inflation for obvious reasons. So the 2 ideas put up were
dilution
stake issuance
Thoughts on that ? Issuance is a weird word. "Issuing stake" ?
Delegated share issuance.
Democratic share issuance.
I can't think of an alternative to the word issuance. Issuance is the best word in my opinion.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/issuance?s=t
-
I am not sure.. Share 2.0 I like it on some level, but not sold. Share is ambiguous and means something else by default. You've removed any context. However I am not sure this type of confusion is bad ?
I had a similar discussion with others .. What should this dilution/inflation be called? Definitely not inflation for obvious reasons. So the 2 ideas put up were
dilution
stake issuance
Thoughts on that ? Issuance is a weird word. "Issuing stake" ?
Delegated share issuance.
Democratic share issuance.
I can't think of an alternative to the word issuance. Issuance is the best word in my opinion.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/issuance?s=t
I do like those. If this happens, content producers will definitely need to decide on something.
I think issuance is weird, because it isn't a word that I think a non-native speaker would necessarily know. It closely resembles issue though so maybe I'm wrong.
-
I had a similar discussion with others .. What should this dilution/inflation be called? Definitely not inflation for obvious reasons. So the 2 ideas put up were
dilution
stake issuance
Thoughts on that ? Issuance is a weird word. "Issuing stake" ?
BM was asked this exact question in the mumble, but I forgot his response. I think it included "capital infusion"
-
capital infusion via delegated issuance of complementary equity
raising equity via democratic emission of new shares 8)
-
I do see shares as having more in common with fiat than say, gold. Most people against dilution have that view because they're stuck in the coin paradigm. Deflationary shares don't make a whole lot of sense because it drastically limits growth. I guess the question is what's the difference between a company's shares, fiat currency and a deflationary commodity like gold.
I'm not actually against dilution I just don't see why we'd do it so early on. I think it's fine as long as there are enough BitAssets so people can park their buying power in them prior to the dilution.
But dilution is going to hurt people who have the least understanding which means it's actually risky to do it. It might be easier to raise transaction fees, increase the burn rate, or just use transaction fees to pay for this. Dilution should be the last resort and when there is dilution it's not like the board of directors can do this and not risk their jobs.
When it's a centralized corporation and the chairman of the board dilutes shareholders then the shareholders hold them accountable. If their plans do not increase buying power for shareholders, if they do not increase the market cap or the marketing campaign doesn't work, then what? Do we vote them out if they fail?
In a centralized corporation there is a consequence for failing but how does it work in a DAC?
-
I'm not actually against dilution I just don't see why we'd do it so early on. I think it's fine as long as there are enough BitAssets so people can park their buying power in them prior to the dilution.
To merge BTSX+VOTE+AGS+PTS into BTS so that is it a stronger competitor
-
I'm not actually against dilution I just don't see why we'd do it so early on. I think it's fine as long as there are enough BitAssets so people can park their buying power in them prior to the dilution.
To merge BTSX+VOTE+AGS+PTS into BTS so that is it a stronger competitor
Bitshares United BTSU
-
+5%
-
Delegated capital allocation.
DCA delegates have the capability to allocate capital to fund projects that will be PROFITABLE for shareholders. It will never be possible for a delegate to simply inflate and steal like we see governments do, because of the total transparency of the system and the ability to instantly kick bad delegates out.
-
a) Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin with the intention of it being decentralized digital gold. Gold 2.0.
b) Daniel Larimer created Bitshares with the intention of it being a decentralized autonomous company. Shares 2.0.
Deflation (or controlled inflation) makes sense if you're trying to be a decentralized global currency like Bitcoin. But what if you're trying to reimagine what a company is?
FACT: "Regular" centralized companies issue new shares to facilitate growth all the time. For a Decentralized Autonomous Company to compete with a centralized corporation, it MUST have the ability to issue new shares or it can never hope to compete. If it comes down to a centralized corporation vs. a DAC, the centralized corp will always win because it has the ability to fund its own growth.
In Dans latest proposal, shareholders must reach a majority consensus through voting before new shares can be issued. This makes complete sense if we want DACs to be self funding and competitive with real world corporations. If we as a community don't get behind the idea of delegated share issuance, the whole concept of a DAC is dead on arrival.
Let's completely embrace the share 2.0 metaphor and get on with changing the world.
+5%
Excellent analogy!
-
Delegated capital allocation.
DCA delegates have the capability to allocate capital to fund projects that will be PROFITABLE for shareholders. It will never be possible for a delegate to simply inflate and steal like we see governments do, because of the total transparency of the system and the ability to instantly kick bad delegates out.
+5%
-
Here's another way to look at it: Bitcoin uses inflation to kickstart security. Bitshares can use inflation to kickstart viral growth. Since a DPOS blockchain is extremely secure and costs next to nothing to maintain, funding viral growth should be a no brainer.