BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: KeyhoteeCN on October 22, 2014, 09:30:20 am
-
are you for or against the LOCKING OF PTS/DNS/VOTE
-
支持 去中心化。合并不去中心化！
-
Is YES equivalent to FOR
and NO equivalent to AGAINST?
-
Agree LOCK！~
-
why lock my dns pts,I want to trade, this is my authority.
为什么锁定 我的dns 和pts， 我想交易就交易，这个是我的权力
-
against
-
BM is a thief.
-
Not sure whats happening here .. but WHO in here .. and WHO of those voting against .. do know the EXACT and FINAL numbers? Because .. honestly ... they have not been published yet!
All what has been publishes was a proposal ...
calling BM a thief is the most wrong I can think of ..
-
All what has been publishes was a proposal ...
This half-baked and incomplete "proposal" is much more than that:
This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument.
-
All what has been publishes was a proposal ...
This half-baked and incomplete "proposal" is much more than that:
This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument.
So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting. BM will listen.
-
So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting. BM will listen.
With the proposal, BM is single-handedly disowning holders of PTS, AGS, DNS and partially BTSX.
He is single-handedly cancelling the social contract regarding PTS and AGS.
I'm calling it single-handedly because 159 forum users can hardly be called a representative majority. (Btw, that majority has just dropped below 75%.)
You cannot do either in a real world situation. And if you try the SEC (or your local equivalent) will give you the kick in the ass that you deserve.
-
Thanks for linking me to that thread again .. I almost missed it .. :-)
-
Not sure whats happening here .. but WHO in here .. and WHO of those voting against .. do know the EXACT and FINAL numbers? Because .. honestly ... they have not been published yet!
All what has been publishes was a proposal ...
calling BM a thief is the most wrong I can think of ..
He stated he do not expect change and the decision is taken.
-
Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?
I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.
-
Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?
I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.
Even though DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet, 2 years is too looooooong~~~. So my proposal is :
DNS start 30%,
VOTE start 30%,
PTS start 100%,
ags start 0%.
-
against
-
Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?
I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.
Even though DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet, 2 years is too looooooong~~~. So my proposal is :
DNS start 30%,
VOTE start 30%,
PTS start 100%,
ags start 0%.
Translated
I have a little
I have a little
I have a F$%k ton
I have none
-
So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting. BM will listen.
With the proposal, BM is single-handedly disowning holders of PTS, AGS, DNS and partially BTSX.
He is single-handedly cancelling the social contract regarding PTS and AGS.
I'm calling it single-handedly because 159 forum users can hardly be called a representative majority. (Btw, that majority has just dropped below 75%.)
You cannot do either in a real world situation. And if you try the SEC (or your local equivalent) will give you the kick in the ass that you deserve.
We are big holders in all those things too.
This is much like trying to find a way to leave everything in your will fairly for all your children.
You want to do it fairly but should mary or suzie get great grandma's wedding ring?
-
1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX. Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
3) Anyone who wants to have liquidity can buy from those willing to give it up between now and Nov. 5th. The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things. Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon?
So right now the market for liquidity is taking place and BTS is gaining a large number of people who are committed for the next 2 years to the project while losing those in it for the short run.
-
There are still snapshots for PTS planned by Play so PTS will go on for its own sake...
-
1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX. Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
...
!? Surely that was true of AGS not PTS. PTS pump and dump was an indication of interest in individual snapshots, although less clear where two happened at the same time.
-
1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX. Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
3) Anyone who wants to have liquidity can buy from those willing to give it up between now and Nov. 5th. The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things. Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon?
So right now the market for liquidity is taking place and BTS is gaining a large number of people who are committed for the next 2 years to the project while losing those in it for the short run.
Bytemaster, lock-ups certainly do exist for real-world corporations, but they typically only apply to insiders. Why can't Bitshares have a lock-up just for the devs? Wouldn't that foster long-term vested interests without punishing other holders?
-
I'm all for locking whatever they want to lock. I sold all my PTS/DNS yesterday as soon as I realized what was happening, so I have no personal reason to oppose locking. One benefit of locking is that it would give newcomers a chance to buy in to BTS cheaply, since the relative price of PTS would be so low due to the liquidity premium of BTSX.
This would also let long-term BTS bulls increase their holdings by trading their BTSX for relatively cheap PTS or DNS.
I like the idea of a shorter vesting period for DNS because that token is supposed to be tied to specific features that we're likely to see implemented soon.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
There are still snapshots for PTS planned by Play so PTS will go on for its own sake...
Huh??? I thought the whole point of your proposal was to have one Super-DAC?
If PTS will stay alive and will still be used by future DACs, the why integrate it into BTS?
-
There are still snapshots for PTS planned by Play so PTS will go on for its own sake...
Huh??? I thought the whole point of your proposal was to have one Super-DAC?
If PTS will stay alive and will still be used by future DACs, the why integrate it into BTS?
Future DACs by *OTHERS*.... I am not providing any time on Play it is 100% on Hack Fisher to run that one. It is being designed, built, and marketed in China and obviously has bad press to be associated with gaming.
The key is that our team will not be spending our time supporting Play other than the 1 time grant to Hack Fisher. It is already under development and fully independent.
-
Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?
I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.
Even though DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet, 2 years is too looooooong~~~. So my proposal is :
DNS start 30%,
VOTE start 30%,
PTS start 100%,
ags start 0%.
Translated
I have a little
I have a little
I have a F$%k ton
I have none
I have a little, YES, but I sold a lot at 0.009 above, and sold others at 0.004 above, so none
I have a little, YES
I have a F$%k ton, NONE
I have none, I AM A AGSER!
Suoyi, qing bu yao zi zuo cong ming!
-
against the LOCKING OF PTS/DNS/VOTE
-
why lock my dns pts,I want to trade, this is my authority.
为什么锁定 我的dns 和pts， 我想交易就交易，这个是我的权力
agree
-
against
-
against
-
lock pts is kidnap
-
PTS is liquid and will remain liquid.
PTS is receiving a gradual snapshot as features are implemented on a time table that is similar to when PTS would have received their snapshots.
PTS is receiving retro-active snapshot to several DACs that they were not expecting to get any cut in.
PTS is getting a very good deal compared to the reality they were facing before... 10 relatively illiquid DACs with divided dev teams competing with each other released over several years.
-
lock pts is kidnap
your PTS will not be locked .. they will still sit in your PTS wallet .. I don't see the issue!
you are airdropped from your PTS int BTS .. those are locked ..
but no one is "kidnapping" your PTS .. that's just not possible!
-
Fact is that most of PTS's value post nov-5 will be moved into BTS by bm's proposal. That part of PTS's value is made illiquid.
The fact that PTS as a coin remains untouched is irrelevant. Furthermore, it is questionable if PTS will actually remain liquid, because with the severe drop in value PTS mining will no longer be economically viable.
Edit: funny how you redefine your own proposals:
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
...
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
-
I hold several 100k's of BTSX and I trust BM. Let him do his thing, made me nice profits so far.
-
PTS should have no lock-in.
DNS, VOTE should invest at set level every month, not years. Maybe 10%or maybe 5% a month.
AGS locked in for two half after year...
-
PTS is liquid and will remain liquid.
PTS is receiving a gradual snapshot as features are implemented on a time table that is similar to when PTS would have received their snapshots.
PTS is receiving retro-active snapshot to several DACs that they were not expecting to get any cut in.
PTS is getting a very good deal compared to the reality they were facing before... 10 relatively illiquid DACs with divided dev teams competing with each other released over several years.