BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: biophil on October 24, 2014, 02:26:21 pm
-
One of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):
1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.
2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).
3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?).
4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.
Discuss.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
We should add if airdrop to AGS/pts then can not use bitusd.
-
IMO PTS as a standalone blockchain will die anyway after nov-5, simply because so much of its value is transferred into BTS that mining it will be an economic suicide.
So if PTS is to be honoured in the future, it'll have to be somehow turned into an asset. Your proposal #3 is closest to the original social contract. #2 is equivalent in terms of distribution, with the additional advantage (for AGS owners) that AGS will become liquid. I wouldn't mind that, although I don't hold any AGS.
You proposal #4 is the worst for PTS holders, obviously. I really don't see justification for that. #1 is bad for both AGS and PTS holders. No justification either.
-
20% (or more!) to BTS because it simplifies everything tremendously. Let AGS and PTS die.
Ultimately, 3rd party developers will snapshot whatever they think will get them the most momentum.
-
PTS/AGS must offer something of benefit to future projects. If we attempt to position ourselves as coercive gatekeepers, we will only harm the growth of the ecosystem.
That being said, I believe there are plenty of potential projects that will find ample benefit in voluntarily issue to the PTS/AGS demographic.
-
I'm for option #2 actually. Reasons
1) BTS can be useful for GENESIS as a host for the asset but BitShares is its own stand alone product. It would be like doing a snapshot of a snapshot. We wouldn't snapshot Music DAC so we shouldn't BTS.
2) If PTS and AGS are rolled into an asset called GENESIS nothing much would change except simplifying things. AGS is static and, IMHO, has already gotten the advantage of non liquidity by the effective multiplier naturally caused by how the auction turned out. Unless we think people will trade PTS/AGS differently as an asset or that a DAC will do 20% PTS and 10% AGS there's no reason to keep them separate other than convention.
3) Converting PTS to DPOS would be a lot of work (maybe, I have no idea). Someone would have to sign up for that. Having a POW coin to track airdrop distribution of DPOS (which we're pushing as being much better than POW) seems counter message.
While during the call I was advocating that PTS can live on it's not PTS itself that people want to live on; it's the social contract they all bought into. If GENESIS can preserve and prolong (no dependence on miners!!) that social contract the actual manifestation of the token is immaterial.
-
One of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):
1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.
2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).
3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?).
4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.
Discuss.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
Let's not forget that pre-Feb28 AGS Donators paid a huge premium.
Also destroying AGS might be a good idea, with the SEC knocking on "crypto IPO" doors
-
One of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):
1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.
2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).
3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?).
4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.
Discuss.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
Let's not forget that pre-Feb28 AGS Donators paid a huge premium.
Also destroying AGS might be a good idea, with the SEC knocking on "crypto IPO" doors
yup and we should even keep it as simple as possible to understand ... when we start with PTS/AGS/BTS etc... then first users are gone due their lack of knowledge about AGS/PTS … maybe … just thinking loud …
-
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.
Personally I would gain more from 3, but this would be tremendously myopic. We need to think big! AGS is already in stone, and PTS will be soon, anyone can honor those lists - making these liquid again would just confuse everyone.
-
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.
Personally I would gain more from 3, but this would be tremendously myopic. We need to think big! In addition, if people want to honor AGS or PTS they can do so if they want; AGS is already in stone, and PTS will be soon.
This should be the accepted standard, IMO.
20% BTS is plenty.
PTS/AGS should be viewed as something completely optional, but an extremely valuable and available tool - especially in highly competitive areas and those looking for stakeholders with a techno/libertarian ethos and bias.
-
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.
It could be argued that the only way to buy the GENESIS asset is with BTS so it's effectively adding a wasted step. However, it could also be argued that there is opportunity cost in holding GENESIS in the hopes a great new DAC comes along to increase its value or give you a cheaper foothold in the new product.
Also, it depends how we view the social contract: Which of these better captures the spirit?
(a) Early risk takers bought into an unknown team developing an unknown product with the promise their early risk would pay dividends for years in every new product.
(b) New DAC developers will want to airdrop to GENESIS holders because they'll gain instant community support and to some extent user base.
Either way if GENESIS is liquid it's a moot point. Those that view (a) would hold and those that view (b) would sell or buy with the market.
-
I have another opinion... now that ags/pts have been given BTS by dilution, you kill them off and introduce this concept: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10385.msg137696#msg137696
When a new DAC is proposed and developers need funds you DO NOT dilute BTS here, instead you raise funds by people buying shares... and those that buy shares and the DAC is successfull they will gain, and if the DAC is unsuccessful the coins are burned, thus adding some deflationary pressure to the inflationary dilution when a dac is merged.
If we offered 20% free to all BTS holders then it would be hard to get people to buy shares because they already get some for free... The BTS holders gain by the utility if and when a DAC is merged into BTS. Because we've created a superdac it negates the need for PTS/AGS and the social consensus comes in the form of a vote which chooses which proposals to allow and merge later.
That was the original intent of PTS/AGS anyway right, to raise funds for developers and give back shares? If you hold the superdac you gain via the new features being introduced. This was a onetime fund raising so that I3 was able to market the product and pay for developers to develop some new DACs but.. those funds don't help any third party developers that create new DACs so to me is a flawed business model.
-
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.
It could be argued that the only way to buy the GENESIS asset is with BTS so it's effectively adding a wasted step. However, it could also be argued that there is opportunity cost in holding GENESIS in the hopes a great new DAC comes along to increase its value or give you a cheaper foothold in the new product.
Also, it depends how we view the social contract: Which of these better captures the spirit?
(a) Early risk takers bought into an unknown team developing an unknown product with the promise their early risk would pay dividends for years in every new product.
(b) New DAC developers will want to airdrop to GENESIS holders because they'll gain instant community support and to some extent user base.
Either way if GENESIS is liquid it's a moot point. Those that view (a) would hold and those that view (b) would sell or buy with the market.
BM said in mumble that he recommends the PTS/AGS 10/10% continue indefinitely, instead of honoring BitShares. If they are not liquid it would not be a way to buy in though.
-
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.
It could be argued that the only way to buy the GENESIS asset is with BTS so it's effectively adding a wasted step. However, it could also be argued that there is opportunity cost in holding GENESIS in the hopes a great new DAC comes along to increase its value or give you a cheaper foothold in the new product.
Also, it depends how we view the social contract: Which of these better captures the spirit?
(a) Early risk takers bought into an unknown team developing an unknown product with the promise their early risk would pay dividends for years in every new product.
(b) New DAC developers will want to airdrop to GENESIS holders because they'll gain instant community support and to some extent user base.
Either way if GENESIS is liquid it's a moot point. Those that view (a) would hold and those that view (b) would sell or buy with the market.
BM said in mumble that he recommends the PTS/AGS 10/10% continue indefinitely, instead of honoring BitShares. If they are not liquid it would not be a way to buy in though.
Yeah, I think if we continue with snapshots, at least one of the snapshotted assets needs to be liquid.
-
The Goal is to streamline our (BTS) message and market image. They should drop 20% to BTS and "spin-off" AGS and PTS since there is so much resistance to shutting them down.
By the way I have current investments in PTS.
Edit: Also the "Bitshares" designator should be pulled from the names of Bitshares PTS and Bitshares AGS products. Additionally, third party users of the Bitshares tool kit should not be allowed to use "Bitshares" in their name ether, since BTS does not fully own them and can not control the product quality. Instead they should be given the tag *powered by Bitshares*.
These details are important to create the market clarity we are seeking.
-
Btser here are robbers，they are selfish,they have no right to vote this thread
-
We should add if airdrop to AGS/pts then can not use bitusd.
don't forget AGS fund Give birth to the btsx
-
Stock quantity Decide attitude
“20% to BTS, let AGS and PTS die” i think these guys have a lot AGS before feb28&at the same time have
a lot btsx but few pts&ags(after2.28)
-
4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.
Could you elaborate on the bold text please. I'm still not clear on the math and I'm both pre/post-Feb28 PTS (10x more post-Feb28) and all post-Feb28 for AGS.
Does anyone know the actual # of shares per PTS/AGS a person will receive for each proposed allocation method?
The percentages aren't really helping me because I'm unclear on the #'s associated with those percentages.
Thanks for any help!
-
4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.
Could you elaborate on the bold text please. I'm still not clear on the math and I'm both pre/post-Feb28 PTS (10x more post-Feb28) and all post-Feb28 for AGS.
Does anyone know the actual # of shares per PTS/AGS a person will receive for each proposed allocation method?
The percentages aren't really helping me because I'm unclear on the #'s associated with those percentages.
Thanks for any help!
Someone did the math in another thread (forget which now) but I believe it was around 100BTS per PTS and 80something per AGS. I think the higher PTS number was due to not having all 2b mined yet.
I have no recollection on how much BTSX pre-Feb PTS and AGS received on average but I'm sure someone has the numbers handy.
-
let AGS and PTS die??
let i3 die!!!!
-
Someone did the math in another thread (forget which now) but I believe it was around 100BTS per PTS and 80something per AGS. I think the higher PTS number was due to not having all 2b mined yet.
The math in real time: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit#gid=0
-
BM said in mumble that he recommends the PTS/AGS 10/10% continue indefinitely, instead of honoring BitShares. If they are not liquid it would not be a way to buy in though.
I can understand that. We can take BM's recommendation under consideration but, not to be cold, but from a PTS/AGS perspective he no longer works here. He and Stan are disbanding III, and their obligations to the social contract, to work for the SuperDAC. That's not a slam on BM or III - there is no expectation of indentured servitude. In the paradigm of a traditional company the head designer, thought leader, and developer have left and taken their core team with them.
So does PTS/AGS die with them? Are the people that feel most abandoned willing to pick up the mantle and make something of the legacy III has left behind? Only time will tell I guess.
-
The math in real time: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit#gid=0
Excellent, thank you!
-
the poll is wrong setting， （1）and （2）are the same situation。and should be combined!
-
10% ags 10% pts, 10% or more bts is perfect.
ags maybe a gift, but pts is prototype what 3i defined before, if wanna pts die, 3i need buy them back from market!
-
the poll is wrong setting， （1）and （2）are the same situation。and should be combined!
投票设置有陷阱！（1）和（2）选项是一回事儿！都是支持AGSer 和 PTSer各10%。分开设置，分散了AGSer 和PTSer的集中度，使得BTS占了大便宜！他奶奶的！比BM还阴损！
-
U people need to understand big picture seems too many short term thinkers that lose money
-
the poll is wrong setting， （1）and （2）are the same situation。and should be combined!
投票设置有陷阱！（1）和（2）选项是一回事儿！都是支持AGSer 和 PTSer各10%。分开设置，分散了AGSer 和PTSer的集中度，使得BTS占了大便宜！他奶奶的！比BM还阴损！
selection1 and 2 are the same, and selection 3 split the vote to 1,and 2，so selection 3, should be deleted. this poll intended to set misleadings! and make advantage for BTSers. Very Ugly!
-
One of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):
1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.
2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).
3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?).
4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.
Discuss.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
selection1 and 2 are the same, and selection 3 split the vote to 1,and 2，so selection 3, should be deleted. this poll intended to set misleadings! and make advantage for BTSers. Very Ugly!
-
10%AGS,10%PTS.
Those who invested in AGS and PTS had been told "you will recieve at least 10% 3rd-party DACs' shares if you buy PTS or AGS" ,they believed and paid for it. But now they are told"you will get 7%" unexpectedly. Even more .PTSer will lost the liquidity.That's unfair.
Merger is ok.but honesty is more important.
-
why not AGS10% PTS10% BTS10%？
-
why not AGS10% PTS10% BTS10%？
Too much. It's already hard to explain why they should give 20% away, and you want them to give 30%?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
Someone did the math in another thread (forget which now) but I believe it was around 100BTS per PTS and 80something per AGS. I think the higher PTS number was due to not having all 2b mined yet.
The math in real time: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit#gid=0
Nice work, thanks.
-
why not AGS10% PTS10% BTS10%？
Too much. It's already hard to explain why they should give 20% away, and you want them to give 30%?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
ags 5% pts 5% bts 5%
-
NO.1 = NO.2
Obviously dispersed the same kind of people.
What a fucking design of vote!!!
-
Which kind of people does it favour?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
3rd party DACs should be encouraged to propose their business plan to BTS holders to raise funding via election into a delegate position and join the superDAC.
-
NO.1 = NO.2
Obviously dispersed the same kind of people.
What a fucking design of vote!!!
Thanks for your kind words. I did it that way because they aren't exactly the same, and I was curious to see the community's opinion on even subtle differences. It got pretty obvious once voting started that they were close enough to the same that they should have been lumped together. I'm closing voting now. The discussion is un-important now, since alphaBar is going to continue maintaining PTS as a separate blockchain anyway.