BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 02:16:25 pm
-
Future DACs should honor PTS for helping bootstrap this community and fund development of the toolkit... but should we continue to dilute PTS holders just to fund mining?
Based upon designs for future DACs that we have, there is no need to have PTS be liquid.
What if we simply shut down PTS after one last snapshot for all eternity for any and all future DACs after which it becomes an empty token with the value of all the other alt coins?
I think it would be much cleaner to simply end PTS... have DACS launch their own proto-dac like Toast did or even BTSX did.
Why do this? It simplifies our marketing message... no need to advertize/support PTS after the last snapshot.
Those who want liquidity could sell prior to the last snapshot and buy into individual proto-dacs when the time comes.
This will also create one genesis block initial balance template for all DACs and remove the need to support the genesis block generators for arbitrary dates.
We are coming up on November 5th, 1 year from the launch of PTS so I would like to propose that November 5th be the last snap shot day for all time after which we would dump all of our PTS on the market to who ever wants to speculate. I suspect that the price fall on PTS after this date would stop mining in its tracks anyway..
Mining is costing our community over $5000 per day right now and over $1 million over the next year.... assuming block times will "average" 5 minutes. We should certainly end mining prior to the next difficulty adjustment... because with what we are paying for mining on PTS we could hire many developers.
Just a proposal...
-
Can you simplify it for me : PTS will not be honored in future after stopping mining ?
The last PTS snapshot of all time (Nov 5, 2014) should be honored by DAC developers... afterward PTS will have no value to US thus we will dump it... and miners which are currently mining near a loss or at a loss will stop completely.
-
What will happen to the 10% AGS/10% PTS social consensus? Will it become 20% for AGS or still be 10% for AGS?
-
What will happen to the 10% AGS/10% PTS social consensus? It will become 20% for AGS or still 10% for AGS?
10% Last PTS snapshot
10% AGS.
-
Can you simplify it for me : PTS will not be honored in future after stopping mining ?
The last PTS snapshot of all time (Nov 5, 2014) should be honored by DAC developers... afterward PTS will have no value to US thus we will dump it... and miners which are currently mining near a loss or at a loss will stop completely.
will there be PTS-2.0 ? or just no more PTS at all?
No more PTS at all is the proposal... there would only be a 20% allocation to a fixed genesis block that will be distributed with the toolkit as a recomendation.
-
How about making PTS an asset on btsx? It would be a great way to show off the capabilities of the market engine, and would save the community both mining and exchange fees.
-
How about making PTS an asset on btsx? It would be a great way to show off the capabilities of the market engine, and would save the community both mining and exchange fees.
But would require generate of new snapshot tools... would be another "thing" to explain to new members of our community.... it would be competing with new DACS for capital.
-
At least this would greatly simplify future genesis blocks ..
unless people leave their PTS in the exchanges
-
So,DAC only wants to give AGS 10%,but under recommendation can also give 20% to the last PTS snapshot ?
no .. will be 10% / 10% .. as usual ..
makes 20% for the combined AGS+PTS snapshot
-
I think it would be much cleaner to simply end PTS... have DACS launch their own proto-dac like Toast did or even BTSX did.
What do you mean by proto-dacs? Some sort of tradable IOUs prior to launch?
-
2.5 weeks is not very much notice. We may have some very angry people show up in a month or two that don't check the forums often after they see the PTS value crashed. I personally think it would be better to do a snapshot then migrate to a DPoS network.
Another thing is in the future 20% of all DACs released will be owned by the same people. It is already bad enough to have 10% that way (AGS). Seeing as though some of the new DACs are only awarding 10%-20% from their pre sales, that means up to 90% of the genesis coins of future DACs new users will not be able to invest in and may affect the popularity and adoption of them.
We should learn from Nxt in this scenario.. If initial distribution of tokens is poor the coin will have low interest and adoption. Historically Nxt's volume is crap compared to the other coins in the top tier in terms of market cap. Even though they have a great product and are one of the most promising cryptocoin 2.0 projects, they are barely alive... under $30,000 in volume the past 24 hours.
-
So this would leave both AGS and PTS working the exact same way:
The last AGS snapshot on July 18
The last PTS snapshot on Nov 5
But they both still function as unique demographic mailing lists for all new DAC categories.
Developers would choose whether their new DAC honors an existing category formerly derived 50/50 from PTS and AGS (like BTSX) or is a new category derived directly from PTS and AGS.
-
Massively against continuing POW on PTS, it should be moved to DPOS ASAP.
The developers of new dacs would be perfect delegates.
I do think however, that snapshots for sharedrops shouldn't be limited to only PTS/AGS - the social consensus is that they each get 10% minimum, why not then snapshot other blockchains like bitcoin for 10%? It would bring a massive influx of new users!
-
I support this.
Likely it'll just die out but I already have all the PTS I plan on buying and am only holding them for future snapshots. If there is one final snapshot than I don't have to worry about accounting for dilution for each new announced DAC.
-
I also think PTS should migrate to DPOS and remain liquid.
-
So this would leave both AGS and PTS working the exact same way:
The last AGS snapshot on July 18
The last PTS snapshot on Nov 5
But they both still function as unique demographic mailing lists for all new DAC categories.
Developers would choose whether their new DAC honors an existing category formerly derived 50/50 from PTS and AGS (like BTSX) or is a new category derived directly from PTS and AGS.
You mean November 5 for last PTS snap, right?
Edit: Er, yes. Fixed.
-
+5%
-
I also think PTS should migrate to DPOS and remain liquid.
I guess that could still be done (using the snapshot) at any point in the future.
-
Nov 5 PTS snapshot=AGS
Before:
1pts+1ags
Now:
2“ags”
-
2.5 weeks is not very much notice. We may have some very angry people show up in a month or two that don't check the forums often after they see the PTS value crashed. I personally think it would be better to do a snapshot then migrate to a DPoS network.
Another thing is in the future 20% of all DACs released will be owned by the same people. It is already bad enough to have 10% that way (AGS). Seeing as though some of the new DACs are only awarding 10%-20% from their pre sales, that means up to 90% of the genesis coins of future DACs new users will not be able to invest in and may affect the popularity and adoption of them.
We should learn from Nxt in this scenario.. If initial distribution of tokens is poor the coin will have low interest and adoption. Historically Nxt's volume is crap compared to the other coins in the top tier in terms of market cap. Even though they have a great product and are one of the most promising cryptocoin 2.0 projects, they are barely alive... under $30,000 in volume the past 24 hours.
There can still be up to 80% of all new DACs available to newcomers through a variety of distribution methods.
One whole year for people to watch PTS go through several snapshot cycles on coinmarketcap is plenty of opportunity to become a ground floor first-year industry founder. The opportunity to lay the ground floor never lasts forever.
-
If someone wants to create a token and suggest it be honored after the final snapshot they are free to do so.
Moving from PTS to DPOS or an asset on BTSX would require a final snapshot anyway.
It is ultimately the DAC creators that decide what to honor.
-
I also think PTS should migrate to DPOS and remain liquid.
+5%
-
ok with this
-
I also think PTS should migrate to DPOS and remain liquid.
I guess that could still be done (using the snapshot) at any point in the future.
Solely depends on consensus. I doubt anyone would honor DPOS chain over the PTS snapshot if it is not recommended by III.
-
I do think however, that snapshots for sharedrops shouldn't be limited to only PTS/AGS - the social consensus is that they each get 10% minimum, why not then snapshot other blockchains like bitcoin for 10%? It would bring a massive influx of new users!
This is the whole idea behind BitShares Sharedrop Theory - http://bitshares.org/bitshares-airdrop-theory/ (http://bitshares.org/bitshares-airdrop-theory/)
-
So this would leave both AGS and PTS working the exact same way:
The last AGS snapshot on July 18
The last PTS snapshot on Nov 5
But they both still function as unique demographic mailing lists for all new DAC categories.
Developers would choose whether their new DAC honors an existing category formerly derived 50/50 from PTS and AGS (like BTSX) or is a new category derived directly from PTS and AGS.
But .... If wasn't under the impression that PTS can be liquid,I would've donated all my PTS to AGS which can gain 6.6X at Feb. for BTSX.
All of these people took a big hit base on this decision,just hoping PTS can be valuable one day.
Now...... If without more allocation preference on PTS than AGS,I don't think many of uf would've understand.
You would have to compare AGS on July 2M vs PTS now 1.7M... thus right now PTS holders would end up with a larger preference than AGS holders ever got. Had you donated to gain 6.6x in Feb for BTSX then you would have been diluted more than holding PTS for everything else. So you traded more BTSX for more of everything else and won. This is a net gain over any day of AGS donation for those who wanted liquidity.
-
So this would leave both AGS and PTS working the exact same way:
The last AGS snapshot on July 18
The last PTS snapshot on Sep 5
But they both still function as unique demographic mailing lists for all new DAC categories.
Developers would choose whether their new DAC honors an existing category formerly derived 50/50 from PTS and AGS (like BTSX) or is a new category derived directly from PTS and AGS.
But .... If wasn't under the impression that PTS can be liquid,I would've donated all my PTS to AGS which can gain 6.6X at Feb. for BTSX.
All of these people took a big hit base on this decision,just hoping PTS can be valuable one day.
Now...... If without more allocation preference on PTS than AGS,I don't think many of uf would've understand.
You would have to compare AGS on July 2M vs PTS now 1.7M... thus right now PTS holders would end up with a larger preference than AGS holders ever got. Had you donated to gain 6.6x in Feb for BTSX then you would have been diluted more than holding PTS for everything else. So you traded more BTSX for more of everything else and won. This is a net gain over any day of AGS donation for those who wanted liquidity.
Even that dillution of about 30% cannot compare to the multiplier of 6.
-
You can end PTS on Nov 5 but I would consider combining PTS & AGS into a single liquid DPOS thing.
As support, interest and understanding of DACs grow more and more people will want to be shareholders in an asset that DAC developers can honour not only to use the BitShares toolkit and perhaps get BitShares dev input but to get a wide base of initial shareholders, thereby avoiding the NXT effect (poor distribution) which can occur with an unpopular pre-sale.
I imagine the VOTE DAC will become popular for this use case as you can enumerate exactly how many people are initial shareholders and award them based on specific criteria too.
But I still think (PTS+AGS) should be a separate liquid asset to constantly broaden its shareholder base and make it more appealing to new DAC developers otherwise the 1000+ (PTS+AGS) shareholders will become a smaller less relevant target over time.
Though I'm personally interested in having a good stake (like we do) in a key/core base DAC in each area. (Finance, Entertainment, Gaming, Voting etc..) rather than trying to focus on 101 offerings anyway.
-
Keeping PTS liquid should help diversify the user base. I would imagine after people finding out about the BTSX snapshot, new users may have purchased PTS for future DAC's.
-
So this would leave both AGS and PTS working the exact same way:
The last AGS snapshot on July 18
The last PTS snapshot on Sep 5
But they both still function as unique demographic mailing lists for all new DAC categories.
Developers would choose whether their new DAC honors an existing category formerly derived 50/50 from PTS and AGS (like BTSX) or is a new category derived directly from PTS and AGS.
But .... If wasn't under the impression that PTS can be liquid,I would've donated all my PTS to AGS which can gain 6.6X at Feb. for BTSX.
All of these people took a big hit base on this decision,just hoping PTS can be valuable one day.
Now...... If without more allocation preference on PTS than AGS,I don't think many of uf would've understand.
You would have to compare AGS on July 2M vs PTS now 1.7M... thus right now PTS holders would end up with a larger preference than AGS holders ever got. Had you donated to gain 6.6x in Feb for BTSX then you would have been diluted more than holding PTS for everything else. So you traded more BTSX for more of everything else and won. This is a net gain over any day of AGS donation for those who wanted liquidity.
Even that dillution of about 30% cannot compare to the multiplier of 6.
It wouldn't apply if you compare apples to apples AGS @ 2M vs PTS @ 1.7M That 6x apply for BTSX and any clones of BTSX only. Holding PTS past Feb 28th... meant you wanted a larger stake in everything that never qualified for a 3x multiplier. Had you chosen to give up your liquidity on Feb 27th you would end up with a MUCH smaller stake than giving up liquidity now.
So I suppose that PTS value would fall to the value proportional to the value of PTS liquidity vs non liqudity after the snapshot. If the fall in value is large then a new "liquid" version would likely pop up... if it were small then there is not much demand for a liquid version of PTS.
Thus the long term holders can make money prior to the last snapshot by buying from the liquidity seekers at a discount.
-
have DACS launch their own proto-dac like Toast did or even BTSX did.
That is too cryptic.
This will also create one genesis block initial balance template for all DACs and remove the need to support the genesis block generators for arbitrary dates.
That takes away half the fun! I thought the idea of moving PTS to DPOS, was to simply have a token that was within the same system as other tokens.
Freezing PTS or whatever those PTS become, would be a substaintial change and step away from what has been the case previously; and would be rather presumptious. I don't mind myself but then like the idea of having an option to buyin more to snapshots that I'm more passionate about. The AGS like option that Notes is doing is alright but I prefer the PTS aspect of it far more.. being one of the incrowd rather than one of the rabble.. also you know what you are getting with the PTS like approach.. gambling each day isn't so much fun.
I think then it would be better to still have a liquid token, to help build excitement at each snapshot and engage holders in each new DAC.. again as someother post pointed out odd characteristics that lend themselves to marketing can be very useful.
-
Keeping PTS liquid should help diversify the user base. I would imagine after people finding out about the BTSX snapshot, new users may have purchased PTS for future DAC's.
That decision hasn't changed since the status of PTS ownership on Nov 5 would be used by them to get all those future DACs.
The only thing that would change is the ability to resell them after that date.
Everyone gets to choose whether they want to be in that snapshot forever or have the current cash value of PTS up front.
-
have DACS launch their own proto-dac like Toast did or even BTSX did.
That is too cryptic.
This will also create one genesis block initial balance template for all DACs and remove the need to support the genesis block generators for arbitrary dates.
That takes away half the fun! I thought the idea of moving PTS to DPOS, was to simply have a token that was within the same system as other tokens.
Freezing PTS or whatever those PTS become, would be a substaintial change and step away from what has been the case previously; and would be rather presumptious. I don't mind myself but then like the idea of having an option to buyin more to snapshots that I'm more passionate about.
I think then it would be better to still have a liquid token, to help build excitement at each snapshot and engage holders in each new DAC.. again as someother post pointed out odd characteristics that lend themselves to marketing can be very useful.
Buying into "snapshots" is very tricky because the value of PTS includes so many factors that you don't know what price you are getting. If you are really interested in a particular DAC it is almost always better not to buy PTS but to buy that one DAC because you will get a larger stake per value. See the Peertracks Pre Sale... cheaper to buy in via their AGS system than via PTS.
Liquidity does have value... adding liquidity to AGS + PTS on a new chain or as user issued assets in BTSX would have value. If adding liquidity has value, then removing liquidity has a cost.... and this is perhaps the biggest reason why we would want to bless a user issued asset that honored the final PTS snapshot.
-
That takes away half the fun! I thought the idea of moving PTS to DPOS, was to simply have a token that was within the same system as other tokens.
Freezing PTS or whatever those PTS become, would be a substaintial change and step away from what has been the case previously; and would be rather presumptious. I don't mind myself but then like the idea of having an option to buyin more to snapshots that I'm more passionate about. The AGS like option that Notes is doing is alright but I prefer the PTS aspect of it far more.. being one of the incrowd rather than one of the rabble.. also you know what you are getting with the PTS like approach.. gambling each day isn't so much fun.
I think then it would be better to still have a liquid token, to help build excitement at each snapshot and engage holders in each new DAC.. again as someother post pointed out odd characteristics that lend themselves to marketing can be very useful.
This is perhaps the most compelling argument. I love watching PTS run up the coinmarketcap flagpole to announce the birth of an new DAC.
-
Initial assumption for PTS was to be liquid. This was reiterated many times. It should remain liquid and DACs shouldn't rely on single snapshot. I think moving it to DPOS (blessed by III) is the best option.
-
Everyone gets to choose whether they want to be in that snapshot forever or have the current cash value of PTS up front.
*Everyone who is aware of it before it happens.
I don't think such a change adds anything. It's all very neat and tidy but I suspect there's a reason that some opted for AGS and some for PTS.
-
User issued asset on BTSX is better than a new chain because then you can buy into snapshots without having to trust an exchange to honor it.
-
I'm not sure my opinion is strong enough on the liquid/illiquid question to make an argument either way, but please consider this:
Novemeber 5 is only 2.5 weeks away! CoinHoarder mentioned this too, that seems WAY TOO SOON. I know you want to blow up Parliament (tee hee, civil disobedience joke!), but don't rush the snapshot just for the sake of symbolism! You're making a major change to the role and function of PTS, and this needs to be very well publicized. 2.5 weeks is a dangerously short time for this!
Edit: Well, at least this discussion has the markets in a flurry: PTS is playing with 0.008 BTC on Bter.
-
Buying into "snapshots" is very tricky because the value of PTS includes so many factors that you don't know what price you are getting. If you are really interested in a particular DAC it is almost always better not to buy PTS but to buy that one DAC because you will get a larger stake per value. See the Peertracks Pre Sale... cheaper to buy in via their AGS system than via PTS.
To correctly make this comparison you have to use the anticipated price drop of PTS as the purchase price you are comparing. There is residual value in PTS after traditional snapshots that doesn't count against what you paid to get those NOTES or whatever.
-
I'm not sure my opinion is strong enough on the liquid/illiquid question to make an argument either way, but please consider this:
Novemeber 5 is only 2.5 weeks away! CoinHoarder mentioned this too, that seems WAY TOO SOON. I know you want to blow up Parliament (tee hee, civil disobedience joke!), but don't rush the snapshot just for the sake of symbolism! You're making a major change to the role and function of PTS, and this needs to be very well publicized. 2.5 weeks is a dangerously short time for this!
If the only change was to move to user issued asset on BTSX then it wouldn't affect its value proposition at all.
-
Buying into "snapshots" is very tricky because the value of PTS includes so many factors that you don't know what price you are getting. If you are really interested in a particular DAC it is almost always better not to buy PTS but to buy that one DAC because you will get a larger stake per value. See the Peertracks Pre Sale... cheaper to buy in via their AGS system than via PTS.
To correctly make this comparison you have to use the anticipated price drop of PTS as the purchase price you are comparing. There is residual value in PTS after traditional snapshots that doesn't count against what you paid to get those NOTES or whatever.
See this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10102.0
Nice analysis on cost of NOTEs via PTS versus pre-sale, accounting for the price-drop you're talking about. He concludes you would get over 50% more NOTE for your money with the pre-sale.
-
Buying into "snapshots" is very tricky because the value of PTS includes so many factors that you don't know what price you are getting. If you are really interested in a particular DAC it is almost always better not to buy PTS but to buy that one DAC because you will get a larger stake per value. See the Peertracks Pre Sale... cheaper to buy in via their AGS system than via PTS.
To correctly make this comparison you have to use the anticipated price drop of PTS as the purchase price you are comparing. There is residual value in PTS after traditional snapshots that doesn't count against what you paid to get those NOTES or whatever.
+1 You are right... in other words you cannot compute the relative cost of PTS vs the presale price... thus it is almost always better to go with the presale if you have a price you are willing to pay... especially because the presale will actually help the DAC you want to succeed (making it more likely to succeed) where as buying PTS does not help the DAC to succeed.
-
What will happen to a market pegged PTS asset on BTSX then?
-
To correctly make this comparison you have to use the anticipated price drop of PTS as the purchase price you are comparing. There is residual value in PTS after traditional snapshots that doesn't count against what you paid to get those NOTES or whatever.
and that is an important point.. perhaps such a change as making PTS illiquid would be zeroing that other value that PTS holds.. the theory perhaps would be that is the sum of future but still it's presumptious about people's intentions.. some might be using it as a currency coin.
-
What will happen to a market pegged PTS asset on BTSX then?
It can be removed from the GUI and never have a price feed.
You can then trade PTS vs BitUSD...
It would also drive demand for BTSX so you can trade PTS.
I think we want to avoid FRAGMENTING the market with too many DACs that all require a delegates and maitenance.
-
What will happen to a market pegged PTS asset on BTSX then?
Probably about the same thing that's happening to it now: nothing. I'm guessing that most delegates wouldn't waste their time publishing a price feed for a coin that doesn't exist...
-
Can we hardfork BTSX and change market issued PTS to a bitAsset distributed to the owners of PTS at snapshot date. Then all future DACs honor PTS bitasset.
-
To correctly make this comparison you have to use the anticipated price drop of PTS as the purchase price you are comparing. There is residual value in PTS after traditional snapshots that doesn't count against what you paid to get those NOTES or whatever.
and that is an important point.. perhaps such a change as making PTS illiquid would be zeroing that other value that PTS holds.. the theory perhaps would be that is the sum of future but still it's presumptious about people's intentions.. some might be using it as a currency coin.
Perhaps... but their use of a currency coin does not preclude how we use it or don't use it. A currency coin that drops after every snapshot and rises prior is not a very good currency and they should know better.
-
Can we hardfork BTSX and change market issued PTS to a bitAsset distributed to the owners of PTS at snapshot date. Then all future DACs honor PTS bitasset.
Not going to support a hard fork for this. PTS should be user issued and transferred by someone other than DAC Sun or I3.
-
What will happen to a market pegged PTS asset on BTSX then?
Probably about the same thing that's happening to it now: nothing. I'm guessing that most delegates wouldn't waste their time publishing a price feed for a coin that doesn't exist...
Actually they could just publish the feed from the internal exchange and thus allow people to short PTS.
-
Can we hardfork BTSX and change market issued PTS to a bitAsset distributed to the owners of PTS at snapshot date. Then all future DACs honor PTS bitasset.
Not going to support a hard fork for this. PTS should be user issued and transferred by someone other than DAC Sun or I3.
So anyone could create an asset and distribute bitasset PTS according to PTS snapshot. Are the tools for this in existance ?
-
So anyone could create an asset and distribute bitasset PTS according to PTS snapshot. Are the tools for this in existance ?
Yes .. anybody (but has to pay BTSX tx fee) ... and no .. no tools
-
So anyone could create an asset and distribute bitasset PTS according to PTS snapshot. Are the tools for this in existance ?
Yes .. anybody (but has to pay BTSX tx fee) ... and no .. no tools
Well even if a user creates the bitasset. He still needs to distribute the PTS somehow. This should cost significant amount of transaction fees.
-
I think it is like 11.5 is snapshot date that snapshot all dac in further.
-
there will still be pre-sales held right? :D
-
Well I am for shutting down the mining of PTS to prevent miner dilution, I am concerned about a 20% cut of DACs going to the same set of entities that are locked in stone. This is not much different than Apple or Google taking a 30% cut to be featured in their store. With PTS liquid, it at least allows new 'founders' into the system.
Is there a way we can stop mining but still keep PTS liquid?
-
Well I am for shutting down the mining of PTS to prevent miner dilution, I am concerned about a 20% cut of DACs going to the same set of entities that are locked in stone. This is not much different than Apple or Google taking a 30% cut to be featured in their store. With PTS liquid, it at least allows new 'founders' into the system.
Is there a way we can stop mining but still keep PTS liquid?
+5%
-
Well I am for shutting down the mining of PTS to prevent miner dilution, I am concerned about a 20% cut of DACs going to the same set of entities that are locked in stone. This is not much different than Apple or Google taking a 30% cut to be featured in their store. With PTS liquid, it at least allows new 'founders' into the system.
Is there a way we can stop mining but still keep PTS liquid?
Issue it as bitAsset.
-
Well I am for shutting down the mining of PTS to prevent miner dilution, I am concerned about a 20% cut of DACs going to the same set of entities that are locked in stone. This is not much different than Apple or Google taking a 30% cut to be featured in their store. With PTS liquid, it at least allows new 'founders' into the system.
Is there a way we can stop mining but still keep PTS liquid?
Issue it as bitAsset.
I'm all for shutting down the mining as well, and the best way to do this seems to be to make it a user issued asset.
However, is snapshotting of an asset actually possible? TITAN and all you know.. And how would the initial distribution work? Would everything need to be done manually?
-
I think we should launch BitShares ME with the first asset being PTS, built in. The PTS snapshot taken can be used both as the percentage of total ME stake, as well as the built-in PTS asset.
ME could have snapshot tools built in, to sharedrop any asset on top of another asset. This would make PTS as part of ME make even more sense.
This also gives incentive to finally launch ME. How perfectly this all fits together makes this seem like a no-brainer to me.
-
I think we should launch BitShares ME with the first asset being PTS, built in. The PTS snapshot taken can be used both as the percentage of total ME stake, as well as the built-in PTS asset.
ME could have snapshot tools built in, to sharedrop any asset on top of another asset. This would make PTS as part of ME make even more sense.
This also gives incentive to finally launch ME. How perfectly this all fits together makes this seem like a no-brainer to me.
how would it technicly work?
-
please dont make it a final snapshot and that is it...Snapshots make PTS valuable. What is the reason to even hold PTS then? In my opinion, watch pts completely drop off of coinmarketcap after this happens.
-
good +5%
-
please dont make it a final snapshot and that is it...Snapshots make PTS valuable. What is the reason to even hold PTS then? In my opinion, watch pts completely drop off of coinmarketcap after this happens.
That's the plan. An end to PTS with one final snapshot.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
It's silly because to the outworld community (people who dont understand bitshares) it will show a crack in the system of bitshares. People dont get whats for what in our system, they see bitshares as one whole thing. If one falls (and thats how it would be viewd by outsiders when it "shuts down"), people will be warry of bying into other DACS - you guys must look at it from outside, as if you dont really understand the concept and you are an average crypto user. Its a BAD idea.... (not saying that keeping to mine them is good)
-
Buying into "snapshots" is very tricky because the value of PTS includes so many factors that you don't know what price you are getting. If you are really interested in a particular DAC it is almost always better not to buy PTS but to buy that one DAC because you will get a larger stake per value. See the Peertracks Pre Sale... cheaper to buy in via their AGS system than via PTS.
To correctly make this comparison you have to use the anticipated price drop of PTS as the purchase price you are comparing. There is residual value in PTS after traditional snapshots that doesn't count against what you paid to get those NOTES or whatever.
+1 You are right... in other words you cannot compute the relative cost of PTS vs the presale price... thus it is almost always better to go with the presale if you have a price you are willing to pay... especially because the presale will actually help the DAC you want to succeed (making it more likely to succeed) where as buying PTS does not help the DAC to succeed.
I think this is the crux of it - PTS/AGS helped bootstrap the Bitshares tech to the point that other DACs could launch and bootstrap via presales.
In this sense PTS/AGS have largely served their purpose and PTS now adds unnecessary complexity to the platform.
PTS should perhaps be retired per the OP.
-
It's silly because to the outworld community (people who dont understand bitshares) it will show a crack in the system of bitshares. People dont get whats for what in our system, they see bitshares as one whole thing. If one falls (and thats how it would be viewd by outsiders when it "shuts down"), people will be warry of bying into other DACS - you guys must look at it from outside, as if you dont really understand the concept and you are an average crypto user. Its a BAD idea.... (not saying that keeping to mine them is good)
This is a very powerful argument.
-
please dont make it a final snapshot and that is it...Snapshots make PTS valuable. What is the reason to even hold PTS then? In my opinion, watch pts completely drop off of coinmarketcap after this happens.
That's the plan. An end to PTS with one final snapshot.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
It doesn't have to been seen as shutting down, but rather upgraded to a better technology and simplified genesis distribution model. The new asset could be called Seeds which combines AGS/PTS
Bitshares Seeds
SeedShares
BitSeeds
SeedShares
-
Why not let all 2m be mined as originally planned and in the mean time concentrate on BTSX and the other DAC's? All this talk about PTS is taking away from time on current DAC's as nothing really needs to be done short term.
-
It's silly because to the outworld community (people who dont understand bitshares) it will show a crack in the system of bitshares. People dont get whats for what in our system, they see bitshares as one whole thing. If one falls (and thats how it would be viewd by outsiders when it "shuts down"), people will be warry of bying into other DACS - you guys must look at it from outside, as if you dont really understand the concept and you are an average crypto user. Its a BAD idea.... (not saying that keeping to mine them is good)
This is a very powerful argument.
glad it made sence :)
-
It doesn't have to been seen as shutting down, but rather upgraded to a better technology and simplified genesis distribution model. The new asset could be called Seeds which combines AGS/PTS
Bitshares Seeds
SeedShares
BitSeeds
SeedShares
I've had this idea too, except I would just call the one proto unit a BitShare
-
It's silly because to the outworld community (people who dont understand bitshares) it will show a crack in the system of bitshares. People dont get whats for what in our system, they see bitshares as one whole thing. If one falls (and thats how it would be viewd by outsiders when it "shuts down"), people will be warry of bying into other DACS - you guys must look at it from outside, as if you dont really understand the concept and you are an average crypto user. Its a BAD idea.... (not saying that keeping to mine them is good)
+5%
completely agree with you
also think these revisions are hurting bitshares as well as III, look at Adam B. Levine, he is right about many things related to original ideas
how I see it, best will be to upgrade PTS difficulty retargeting and let it mine to 2M, after all is mined transfer it to DPOS as an asset
original plan was to leave PTS liquid, so leave it liquid
-
PTS has finished its mission and it is time to stop. Fully support this proposal.
Only concern is 11/05 may be too soon for those who don't actively follow the posts. Probably better to allow longer time. It doesn't have to be exactly on the anniversary which only gives an aesthetically better looking number.
-
PTS has finished its mission and it is time to stop.
At what place and time has its finished its mission?! :o
Not that this was the point of my argument, but never the less PTS has only just BEGUN its mission. People are right - finish the mining, go to DPOS and assets.....
-
My thoughts, as someone who discovered bitshares in September:
If PTS had been forever closed to me at the time I discovered bitshares, I wouldve been very frustrated. I would not have continued investigating bitshares, and I would not have bought a bunch of PTS and BTSX.
If you lock out everyone who does not currently have AGS or PTS from EVER acquiring a stake in the genesis shares of new DACs, then you will cause a huge number of people who discover us later to feel they have missed the boat, that they cannot participate in these new DACs, and they will leave, and not become members of the bitshares community.
So I think it is critical that we do NOT forever shut off any way to buy into the PTS/AGS genesis shares of new DACs.
Also, if we did that, and PTS then went to 0, there would be a TON of people out there going "Bitshares is dead, the price is zero". You would see BTSX go back to 1 cent, purely based on idiots who didnt understand anything dumping. People outsdie our community dont understand the difference between PTS and BTSX, they would see PTS go to 0 and would then forever avoid this whole bitshares thing.
**************
That said, obviously continuing to waste money on mining is bad, so we should either:
1) Convert PTS to DPoS.
or
2) Combine AGS/PTS into a new 'Bitshare' unit, and have this be DPoS.
Whatever it is, it needs to be tradable, so that newcomers can buy in.
-
...
how I see it, best will be to upgrade PTS difficulty retargeting and let it mine to 2M, after all is mined transfer it to DPOS as an asset
Did you know that if even we fix the difficulty, to mine to 2M (300 000 left) of PTS will take additional year from today?
PS: If we don't fix difficulty, it's also take year but network speed (block producing rate) will vary as today.
-
This is perhaps the most compelling argument. I love watching PTS run up the coinmarketcap flagpole to announce the birth of an new DAC.
Absolutely this.
And the opposite effect will occur if you cause PTS to die and go to 0.
-
My thoughts, as someone who discovered bitshares in September:
If PTS had been forever closed to me at the time I discovered bitshares, I wouldve been very frustrated. I would not have continued investigating bitshares, and I would not have bought a bunch of PTS and BTSX.
If you lock out everyone who does not currently have AGS or PTS from EVER acquiring a stake in the genesis shares of new DACs, then you will cause a huge number of people who discover us later to feel they have missed the boat, that they cannot participate in these new DACs, and they will leave, and not become members of the bitshares community.
So I think it is critical that we do NOT forever shut off any way to buy into the PTS/AGS genesis shares of new DACs.
Also, if we did that, and PTS then went to 0, there would be a TON of people out there going "Bitshares is dead, the price is zero". You would see BTSX go back to 1 cent, purely based on idiots who didnt understand anything dumping. People outsdie our community dont understand the difference between PTS and BTSX, they would see PTS go to 0 and would then forever avoid this whole bitshares thing.
**************
That said, obviously continuing to waste money on mining is bad, so we should either:
1) Convert PTS to DPoS.
or
2) Combine AGS/PTS into a new 'Bitshare' unit, and have this be DPoS.
Whatever it is, it needs to be tradable, so that newcomers can buy in.
+5%
Excellent, compelling arguments.
I do not like the idea of closing PTS; it's a pretty cool story to give everybody the chance to buy in to the possibility of the next big thing. Maybe a counter-argument is that they can buy into any of the other proto-DACs they want; the problem with this is it requires research and it's really great to have a nice technology-agnostic staking coin like PTS so people can speculate on the idea of the whole DAC industry.
-
I think the final snapshot is a good idea. Unprofitable abandoned mining could be a dangerous problem and may arise quickly. Or not? What do you think?
-
If you let PTS die, you need to make sure people save their private keys forever offline. I can see a lot of people deleting their PTS wallets along with the privkey and back ups causing some PR issues.
-
The only reason not to end PTS would be the negative publicity effect that will have the drop in price after the snapshot. Otherwise I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to keep mining PTS and having those costs. IHMO this potentially negative publicity will not be that much of a problem if only a small portion of the costs saved are used in marketing. I don't think that many people will buy PTS with no value anyway after the snapshot and those who will, will be people who don't care at all about what is happening here and will only buy them because they notice something really cheap suddenly. Therefore I definitely support ending PTS.
Many people still don't understand how PTS works. If by now they are not interested in PTS they will never be. These people will always speculate when the DAC is launched or at best in the IPOs of the DACs.
Many didn't understood AGS in the beginning (including myself).
Everyone wish now they had understood AGS prior to the 28th snapshot.
Everyone will wish in the future to have understood PTS before the November 5th snapshot. We are in the beginning not in the end.
In the end of the day, If you own PTS you get c13% more than any AGS shareholder in all future DACs assuming equal distribution by giving up your liquidity as AGS shareholders did long time ago.
It's about time that this ends now, so we get rid of people who dump shares upon launching of every DAC and PTS goes to stronger hands willing to buy them now because they see the full potential of the future DACs.
I really don't see why would anyone be opposed to ending PTS.
-
do it +5%
-
There should be a message broadcast in the PTS client letting ppl know what is happening and how to protect/claim their stake in the the new coin/dac.
-
I really don't see why would anyone be opposed to ending PTS.
Because it permanently shuts off anyone new from being able to buy a stake in all future DACs (at once). It tells newcomers "nope, this opportunity is forever closed to you. You never get to be one of the special people who gets shares in every new DAC."
And then they get upset and leave, instead of becoming bitshares supporters.
-
Maybe it if becomes valuable people will think twice to shut er down... if it rises enough there will be enough interest to keep it around and I suspect his is what will happen.. along with changing it to dpos and/or isssuing a pts asset. bitPTS
-
It doesn't have to been seen as shutting down, but rather upgraded to a better technology and simplified genesis distribution model. The new asset could be called Seeds which combines AGS/PTS
Bitshares Seeds
SeedShares
BitSeeds
SeedShares
I've had this idea too, except I would just call the one proto unit a BitShare
I really like this idea, and its easy for new people to understand. (Which is a complaint about bitshares - there is too much complexity).
You buy a BitShare, and you get some of every Bitshares <whatever> DAC that comes out.
-
Because it permanently shuts off anyone new from being able to buy a stake in all future DACs (at once). It tells newcomers "nope, this opportunity is forever closed to you. You never get to be one of the special people who gets shares in every new DAC."
And then they get upset and leave, instead of becoming bitshares supporters.
Not necessarily. You can buy now in Music IPO cheaper than holding PTS prior to the snapshot...
-
Future DACs should honor PTS for helping bootstrap this community and fund development of the toolkit... but should we continue to dilute PTS holders just to fund mining?
Based upon designs for future DACs that we have, there is no need to have PTS be liquid.
What if we simply shut down PTS after one last snapshot for all eternity for any and all future DACs after which it becomes an empty token with the value of all the other alt coins?
I think it would be much cleaner to simply end PTS... have DACS launch their own proto-dac like Toast did or even BTSX did.
Why do this? It simplifies our marketing message... no need to advertize/support PTS after the last snapshot.
Those who want liquidity could sell prior to the last snapshot and buy into individual proto-dacs when the time comes.
This will also create one genesis block initial balance template for all DACs and remove the need to support the genesis block generators for arbitrary dates.
We are coming up on November 5th, 1 year from the launch of PTS so I would like to propose that November 5th be the last snap shot day for all time after which we would dump all of our PTS on the market to who ever wants to speculate. I suspect that the price fall on PTS after this date would stop mining in its tracks anyway..
Mining is costing our community over $5000 per day right now and over $1 million over the next year.... assuming block times will "average" 5 minutes. We should certainly end mining prior to the next difficulty adjustment... because with what we are paying for mining on PTS we could hire many developers.
Just a proposal...
I concur. +5%
PTS is no longer useful, and is positively wasteful at this point.
-
Future DACs should honor PTS for helping bootstrap this community and fund development of the toolkit... but should we continue to dilute PTS holders just to fund mining?
Based upon designs for future DACs that we have, there is no need to have PTS be liquid.
What if we simply shut down PTS after one last snapshot for all eternity for any and all future DACs after which it becomes an empty token with the value of all the other alt coins?
I think it would be much cleaner to simply end PTS... have DACS launch their own proto-dac like Toast did or even BTSX did.
Why do this? It simplifies our marketing message... no need to advertize/support PTS after the last snapshot.
Those who want liquidity could sell prior to the last snapshot and buy into individual proto-dacs when the time comes.
This will also create one genesis block initial balance template for all DACs and remove the need to support the genesis block generators for arbitrary dates.
We are coming up on November 5th, 1 year from the launch of PTS so I would like to propose that November 5th be the last snap shot day for all time after which we would dump all of our PTS on the market to who ever wants to speculate. I suspect that the price fall on PTS after this date would stop mining in its tracks anyway..
Mining is costing our community over $5000 per day right now and over $1 million over the next year.... assuming block times will "average" 5 minutes. We should certainly end mining prior to the next difficulty adjustment... because with what we are paying for mining on PTS we could hire many developers.
Just a proposal...
I concur. +5%
PTS is no longer useful, and is positively wasteful at this point.
Me too! +5%
-
It doesn't have to been seen as shutting down, but rather upgraded to a better technology and simplified genesis distribution model. The new asset could be called Seeds which combines AGS/PTS
Bitshares Seeds
SeedShares
BitSeeds
SeedShares
I've had this idea too, except I would just call the one proto unit a BitShare
I really like this idea, and its easy for new people to understand. (Which is a complaint about bitshares - there is too much complexity).
You buy a BitShare, and you get some of every Bitshares <whatever> DAC that comes out.
That would be incredible. Perfect idea.
-
I've always been against the idea of making AGS transferable, but some arguments in this thread seem to make the argument very convincing.
Most important - There must remain an avenue for those new to the Bitshares community to invest in upcoming DAC's
The bundle of changes I find most interesting:
*Final snapshot / end PTS on 1 year anniversary
*Convert PTS and AGS to transferable UIA on BTSX
- (maybe later to be moved when ME launches - move and transactions would offer incentives to attract delegates for ME)
*Convert existing amounts to equivalent amount of 1 billion total new asset - "Bitshares Snapshot" or "Bitshares Seed" or "Bitshares S" or "Bitshares DAC"...whatever (just because I like nice round numbers that allow easy calculation of percentages ;-) )
If there are any other concerns regarding the conversion of AGS to transferable assets, maybe it can be entertained that they remain "locked" until the originally announced DAC's are snapshot (I believe only PLAY and ME remain from the original vision - please correct me if I am wrong) - and at that point allowing conversion to transferable assets.
...my .02 BTSX
-
Initial assumption for PTS was to be liquid. This was reiterated many times. It should remain liquid and DACs shouldn't rely on single snapshot. I think moving it to DPOS (blessed by III) is the best option.
+5%
-
It needs to be transparent to the public what is happening. PTS on coinmarketcap needs to link directly to a count-down and an explanation, that it is migrating to the faster, more powerful DPOS technology, and that everyone holding PTS on date X will retain their stake. Exchanges should be notified.. If this plan is supposed to happen 5th, you guys have a lot to do and very little time to do it.. Otherwise extend the deadline.
It would also drive demand for BTSX so you can trade PTS.
I think we want to avoid FRAGMENTING the market with too many DACs that all require a delegates and maitenance.
On the positive, this is a great opportunity. While snapdeath might cause fear in the short term, the continued association of the defunct PTS blockchain&wallet with the suprior DPOS technology through the "BitShares" brand will rightly come to an end.
-
TRUE strength requires flexibility and rigidity to complement each other. The current AGS/PTS value proposition is a great model for this theory, right? AGS rigidly represents the most willing and generous of the early crowd, while PTS supports the ebb and flow of new interests. Take away the flexibility, and you have a set group of insiders that gets to reap disproportional benefits. Take away the rigidity, and your "mailing list" becomes less appealing to those wishing to secure *solid* support.
PTS is the only experiment of its kind (that I know of) in cryptospace that offers its participants such an exciting, unpredictable, and constantly renewable opportunity for share allocation. While it might be tempting to “lock in” our positions at this time, has the current model of PTS been such a failure after only a year that it warrants complete reformulation? Is this a course that needs correction?
I am not arguing that the current POW shouldn't be migrated onto DPOS in some fashion. IMO through user-issued assets as part of the Bitshares ME genesis block (which would give a double incentive for PTS trading before the final snapshot). I am, however, less qualified to recommend migration tactics as I am to implore you all to consider the social implications of abandoning what I believe to be one of our best “opportunities” for newcomers. POW may be broken, but surely (Proto)shares is not!
-
I'll come back to my argument and extend it to : If you this now, you'll see the price of btsx go down Lots (with a capital L), more so, NOT, for a short term
Edit : PTS has been live for a year.... for us...not for your average user! You'll kill the party without even starting it. People are VERY MUCH vary of btsx today. Believe me when i say so. I have 5 converstaion everyday convincing people btsx is good for them. Do this now and see that number of people that don't understand btsx and bitUSD grow
-
Too many snapshots hurt the market , one snapshut for all dac’s is a great idea.
-
this suggestion is way to late!!!
now we have to rush.....never a good idea....
sry, it's really funny. in older posts bytemaster that one guy (i forgot the name) is in charge of PTS but this suggestion comes from bytemaster. in my eyes this is a total marketing disaster.
stop talking. it was never said PTS will be not liquid this is the whole idea of PTS....you can't set it in stone! Point!
1. take your snapshot
2. transfer to DPOS run with delegates for higher fees (only a speculation chain)
3. the left PTS shares who are not mined should given to a new created marketing fund to support the bitshares ecosystem. we already learned that we need more fundes and this amount is good allocated. with this fund we could finance some community ideas.
i don't follow in this case bytemasters lead. in this case he is wrong!
-
I'll come back to my argument and extend it to : If you this now, you'll see the price of btsx go down Lots (with a capital L), more so, NOT, for a short term
Edit : PTS has been live for a year.... for us...not for your average user! You'll kill the party without even starting it. People are VERY MUCH vary of btsx today. Believe me when i say so. I have 5 converstaion everyday convincing people btsx is good for them. Do this now and see that number of people that don't understand btsx and bitUSD grow
I agree.
The amount of FUD that is going to appear out there as a result of this is way beyond what any of you are imagining. We are all going to be posting 24/7 on every message board trying to fight it.
The price of BTSX will probably crash back to 1 cent USD, at least temporarily. All our momentum that we have achieved since the release of bitUSD in august will be dead. Everyone will see BTSX as a pump and dump that already got dumped, and they wont wont to buy back into it again. It will look like we had a huge pump when we released bitUSD, and that it is back to where it started because "it doesnt work and there is no volume".
That is what the narrative would be, unless you guys put up a huge buywall of tons of BTSX under the current price or something like that.
-
My investment in PTS was made with the understanding that it would remain liquid, allowing me to transfer the value to another party when I choose to exit the position. Doing anything to change that fact represents breach of social contract.
Given a Final PTS Snapshot making it illiquid:
Thinking ahead to end of life asset transfer, I struggle to understand how my PTS position could be divided to my wishes when the final snapshot key(s) would dictate the divisibility of the position. Worst case, a single key would represent my entire position making it impossible to divide.
Respectfully,
Fox
-
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.
-
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.
Hasn't this always been the deal? Haven't you guys been consistently overestimating the seeming value proposition third parties see in what you guys want done?
-
I like the idea of converting to a BTSX asset!
Right now there is low volume in all of the BTSX assets: bitUSD, etc.
Daily volume in all of them combined is a few thousand dollars.
Having PTS as an asset in BTSX could multiply that amount by a factor of 10.
(Of course, in the future we expect and want to see a lot more bitUSD use. But for now, PTS would be the biggest asset on there).
-
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best
Yup, at least I'm in agreement with all three, and have (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg124147#msg124147) been (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg124162#msg124162) for a while (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg124284#msg124284) now (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg125016#msg125016).
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.
Darn. So I guess the answer to my question at the end of this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg124270#msg124270) is no. Is this because of legal reasons?
As for not labeling it "PTS", I agree and I have previously suggested calling the combined PTS+AGS "BitShares PROTO". I also liked the suggestion by Pheonike to call it "BitShares Seeds". But I definitely do not like just calling it "BitShares" because that is super confusing.
-
I agree with arhag
-
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best
Yup, at least I'm in agreement with all three, and have (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg124147#msg124147) been (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg124162#msg124162) for a while (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg124284#msg124284) now (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg125016#msg125016).
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.
Darn. So I guess the answer to my question at the end of this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9548.msg124270#msg124270) is no. Is this because of legal reasons?
As for not labeling it "PTS", I agree and I have previously suggested calling the combined PTS+AGS "BitShares PROTO". I also liked the suggestion by Pheonike to call it "BitShares Seeds". But I definitely do not like just calling it "BitShares" because that is super confusing.
+5%
make sure to announce it to give plenty of time.
-
Could we do a AGS style donation for the remaining PTS?
-
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.
When we discussed this a few months back, a number of posters liked the name "FounderShares" as a PTS successor. Just for fun, I went ahead and registered the domains (I got .net and .org; .com was not available). It's fine with me if you guys choose another name, but if you want FounderShares, I'd be glad to transfer those at my cost.
-
FounderShares sounds exactly like some "unfair" thing that a new person cannot buy into anymore. ;)
Bitshares Seed is a good name, imo. Or possibly Bitshares Genesis? Because it gives you a stake in the Genesis block of future DACs?
-
FounderShares sounds exactly like some "unfair" thing that a new person cannot buy into anymore. ;)
Bitshares Seed is a good name, imo. Or possibly Bitshares Genesis? Because it gives you a stake in the Genesis block of future DACs?
BitShares Genesis is good.
-
FounderShares sounds exactly like some "unfair" thing that a new person cannot buy into anymore. ;)
Bitshares Seed is a good name, imo. Or possibly Bitshares Genesis? Because it gives you a stake in the Genesis block of future DACs?
BitShares Genesis is good.
Ooh, I really like that. Can we please call it Genesis?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
My lasting contribution to the Bitshares community for all time:
Coming up with the name Bitshares Genesis. :)
-
Could we do a AGS style donation for the remaining PTS?
I normally hate it when people talk about "the remaining PTS", but I actually like this idea. This or simply scaling existing balances to reach some convenient round number total.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
Could we do a AGS style donation for the remaining PTS?
I normally hate it when people talk about "the remaining PTS", but I actually like this idea. This or simply scaling existing balances to reach some convenient round number total.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
I would just scale it. The same people who own PTS now would buy it again through AGS. Unless I3 needs the additional money that badly, I'd rather just see that money kept in the hands of the people who might invest it into some part of BTSX or elsewhere in the BitShares ecosystem. I'd rather add value there.
-
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.
I believe you made the right decision. Breaching the social contract is definitely a bad idea in anytime, especially the benefit of shareholders is effected. PTS was designed to be liquid whereas AGS was not, we need to keep this promise. Therefore, migrating PTS to BTSX assert should be the best idea, because PTS is still liquid. Additionally, it increases the use the BTSX market. One stone, two birds. +5% +5% +5%
-
BitShares GENESIS... I like it :)
You are trading genesis stake in future chains... much better than PTS and much clearer to describe.
-
I believe you made the right decision. Breaching the social contract is definitely a bad idea in anytime, especially the benefit of shareholders is effected. PTS was designed to be liquid whereas AGS was not, we need to keep this promise.
I've always been against the idea of making AGS transferable...
TRUE strength requires flexibility and rigidity to complement each other. The current AGS/PTS value proposition is a great model for this theory, right? AGS rigidly represents the most willing and generous of the early crowd, while PTS supports the ebb and flow of new interests. Take away the flexibility, and you have a set group of insiders that gets to reap disproportional benefits. Take away the rigidity, and your "mailing list" becomes less appealing to those wishing to secure *solid* support.
I really don't get this desire some people have to not make AGS liquid. Making AGS liquid doesn't take away anything from people, it only gives them more options. If you are an AGS holder and you don't want to sell, then just don't sell the new asset when AGS becomes liquid. I don't understand how you benefit from being denied the ability to transfer it.
And even if you deny AGS holders the ability to sell, it doesn't mean you will necessarily get "solid support" by allocating your DAC's genesis shares to AGS. Any AGS holders who have changed their mind and given up on the DAC idea (or maybe just your specific DAC) for whatever reason will be weak hands that will just dump the free shares given to them once your DAC goes live. Rigidity is not at all desirable in this case, but flexibility is. You want the proto-shares to be transferable so that the strongest hands are self-selected to hold your initial shares. It's even better if a portion of the initial shares are allocated according to an IPO because then the DAC gets self-selected strong hands to hold the initial shares and the DAC creators get enough initial capital to give the DAC a fighting chance for success.
-
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.
I like this conclusion. I doubt anyone is strongly attached to keeping the mining part of PTS around, but I think it's important to keep it liquid.
I believe too many people have invested in PTS based on the understanding that it would be liquid to just pull the rug out from under them. Ander also made an excellent point about future prospective investors potentially turning away from the ecosystem due to not having a liquid token they are able to buy into as a speculation on the future of I3 supported DACs.
I'm nearly certain that DACs in general will at some point flourish, that you will see them spring up and compete all over the place. Hopefully by that time, Bitshares will be seen as a pioneer and will have sprouted at least some of the most successful and well known DACs to date. I think the decentralized revolution is just beginning and it seems crazy to cut off investment opportunities into the future of the Bitshares ecosystem.
Doesn't everyone imagine there being incredible and complex DACs still be launched and tested say 5 years from now? Isn't Bitshares positioned well to ride the crest of the coming tsunami of DACs yet to be invented in the future? Isn't the point of PTS to invest in future DACs? Feels short sighted to cut it off now and call it mission accomplished. I always assumed it would be years down the line when PTS would get very interesting, after the word was out and DACs following the social consensus were well known and well regarded, with more being created all the time.
I'm actually quite surprised to see so many supporting the "lock-in" of PTS.
I'm rather ambivalent about the naming of the new "PTS" asset, Genesis sounds pretty good but I think the other suggestions would also work.
-
+5% for Bitshares Genesis!
-
Merging AGS + PTS into GENESIS would transfer value from PTS to AGS holders...
What percent of AGS holders would sell if made liquid? I think it would be small so this would result in offsetting the elimination of mining dilution from PTS.
The story gets MUCH simpler for marketing purposes and cleans up our whole ecosystem:
BTSX with GENSIS asset trading against BitUSD all on one chain.... in one wallet.
Now obviously this would help the community.... and I think it would be fair if someone did it and others recognized it.
-
Novemeber 5 is only 2.5 weeks away! CoinHoarder mentioned this too, that seems WAY TOO SOON. I know you want to blow up Parliament (tee hee, civil disobedience joke!), but don't rush the snapshot just for the sake of symbolism! You're making a major change to the role and function of PTS, and this needs to be very well publicized. 2.5 weeks is a dangerously short time for this!
+5% (https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/2/4/d245777abca64ece2d5d7ca0d19fddb6.png)
I do not like the idea of closing PTS; it's a pretty cool story to give everybody the chance to buy in to the possibility of the next big thing. Maybe a counter-argument is that they can buy into any of the other proto-DACs they want; the problem with this is it requires research and it's really great to have a nice technology-agnostic staking coin like PTS so people can speculate on the idea of the whole DAC industry.
+5%
-
In the crypto world, 2.5 weeks is enough time. It's not like we're erasing PTS, just snapshotting it. Even if someone goes on vacation for a month and misses this, then:
(1) If they hold PTS, they'll have value returned to them, and
(2) If they don't hold PTS and wish they'd bought some, they still can acquire BitShares Genesis, which will be a liquid asset.
The only people 'out of luck' are those who want to profit short term from the rises and falls. And if they're into short term trading, then it's their fault they checked out for 2.5 weeks.
-
In the crypto world, 2.5 weeks is enough time. It's not like we're erasing PTS, just snapshotting it. Even if someone goes on vacation for a month and misses this, then:
(1) If they hold PTS, they'll have value returned to them, and
(2) If they don't hold PTS and wish they'd bought some, they still can acquire BitShares Genesis, which will be a liquid asset.
The only people 'out of luck' are those who want to profit short term from the rises and falls. And if they're into short term trading, then it's their fault they checked out for 2.5 weeks.
The rules are that snapshots give two week's notice. So if someone decides to do this, you've got several whole days left to make the announcement if you want to hit the Nov 5th anniversary date. :)
-
It is better that I3 makes the announcement.
In the crypto world, 2.5 weeks is enough time. It's not like we're erasing PTS, just snapshotting it. Even if someone goes on vacation for a month and misses this, then:
(1) If they hold PTS, they'll have value returned to them, and
(2) If they don't hold PTS and wish they'd bought some, they still can acquire BitShares Genesis, which will be a liquid asset.
The only people 'out of luck' are those who want to profit short term from the rises and falls. And if they're into short term trading, then it's their fault they checked out for 2.5 weeks.
The rules are that snapshots give two week's notice. So if someone decides to do this, you've got several whole days left to make the announcement if you want to hit the Nov 5th anniversary date. :)
-
Can we just PLEASE make a new CLEAN and STICKY topic with what is going to happen to PTS and a clear time frame for it to happen and the rules etc etc etc (and no possibility to comment) - i think this is quite important, as lots of us are worried this might hurt bitshares if not done properly.
BTW, all this campaign MUST be followed directly and all along the line by CLEARLY stating everywhere that NOTHING IS BEING ERASED
-
Can we just PLEASE make a new CLEAN and STICKY topic with what is going to happen to PTS and a clear time frame for it to happen and the rules etc etc etc (and no possibility to comment) - i think this is quite important, as lots of us are worried this might hurt bitshares if not done properly.
BTW, all this campaign MUST be followed directly and all along the line by CLEARLY stating everywhere that NOTHING IS BEING ERASED
+5% +5%
-
Can we just PLEASE make a new CLEAN and STICKY topic with what is going to happen to PTS and a clear time frame for it to happen and the rules etc etc etc (and no possibility to comment) - i think this is quite important, as lots of us are worried this might hurt bitshares if not done properly.
BTW, all this campaign MUST be followed directly and all along the line by CLEARLY stating everywhere that NOTHING IS BEING ERASED
+5% +5%
＋5%
-
Please also inform the exchanges trading pts to STOP trading once and for all after the snapshot ... thia is VERY important
-
So do we have a final verdict on that? Is November 5th the last PTS snapshot or not?
-
So do we have a final verdict on that? Is November 5th the last PTS snapshot or not?
IMHO the only issue is to find SOMEONE .. to do it ..
I would love to do it .. but beginning 6th Nov. I need to reduce my activities in here drastically to focus on work for the next few months ..
-
So do we have a final verdict on that? Is November 5th the last PTS snapshot or not?
IMHO the only issue is to find SOMEONE .. to do it ..
I would love to do it .. but beginning 6th Nov. I need to reduce my activities in here drastically to focus on work for the next few months ..
Furthermore due to the "issuing digital tokens" the entity that does it should be completely confident in the legal part of this matter.
-
Please also inform the exchanges trading pts to STOP trading once and for all after the snapshot ... thia is VERY important
They should just continue trading, and disable withdrawals/deposits until Genesis is ready and have figured out a deposit system. Benefits:
1. Smooth transition
2. We keep our exchange positions
3. Nobody has to/gets to dump worthless PTS
-
Can we just PLEASE make a new CLEAN and STICKY topic with what is going to happen to PTS and a clear time frame for it to happen and the rules etc etc etc (and no possibility to comment) - i think this is quite important, as lots of us are worried this might hurt bitshares if not done properly.
BTW, all this campaign MUST be followed directly and all along the line by CLEARLY stating everywhere that NOTHING IS BEING ERASED
BUMP, please do so )))
-
This is going to be a mess. What would happen to PTS that ends up on an exchange? You are not guaranteed that exchanges will continue to award every snapshot.
I've been screaming about making AGS liquid, and was always pointed to PTS if I wanted liquidity. It would be a huge mistake making PTS non-liquid.
Furthermore, BTSX has a lot of room to grow, but if newcomers come in and see that there was a time to participate and they all missed it, they will lose interest.
NOTE: I think by now we all agree that PTS should remain liquid, but I find it very disturbing that locking it in stone is even being considered.
-
NOTE: I think by now we all agree that PTS should remain liquid, but I find it very disturbing that locking it in stone is even being considered.
its not more considered
current consensus is (thats my impression)
+ keep PTS liquid
+ make AGS liquid
+ put them together as BitShares Genesis
+ make them an asset in BTSX
BUT, I3 just cannot do it (for legal reasons) and thus someone else must be fund to do it ..
That's the "whole" issue at the moment
-
NOTE: I think by now we all agree that PTS should remain liquid, but I find it very disturbing that locking it in stone is even being considered.
its not more considered
current consensus is (thats my impression)
+ keep PTS liquid
+ make AGS liquid
+ put them together as BitShares Genesis
+ make them an asset in BTSX
BUT, I3 just cannot do it (for legal reasons) and thus someone else must be fund to do it ..
That's the "whole" issue at the moment
if you consider legal problems, you shouln't make AGS liquid. It was stated from the beginning it is a donation. A donation is not tradeable.(as a disclaimer i converted every PTS into AGS)
- i see no legal problem to take the PTS snapshot promise with another snapshot do the BTSX exchange. PTS as an asset already exist. so just announce that we take the PTS promise from the mined PTS to the bitAsset blockchain on BTSX. So we need only a easy tool for DAC developers to make a snapshot on a stated date. the bitPTS should only be tradeable on the blockchain, because everytime a snapshot occurs we have problem with exchanges not honoring PTS. this will solve many and will satisfy the most.
- and we should reallocate the shares to 2million to a community held dev/marketing fund to be created.
-
that's why I3 can't do it ..
but don't nail me on legal details .. I am not a laywer :)
-
that's why I3 can't do it ..
but don't nail me on legal details .. I am not a laywer :)
what can't they do it? to change the social contract to honoring the PTS holders on the BTSX blockchain? i see no legal problem in it. you face the same problem with last snapshot and not liquid anymore. Or what do you mean?
-
I think changing liquidity in either way (making PTS non-liquid or making AGS liquid) would leave a bad impression. It was made clear that PTS would be liquid and AGS liquidity wouldn't be encouraged by I3 directly. Changing this leads to value transfer between PTS and AGS. If that happens investors will eventually lose trust.
-
Many moons ago I suggested the that PTS and AGS be combined in a unified DPoS coin, and was immediately shot down by BM and his dad. Looks like I was not so crazy after all.
I still think you should launch it as a pure DPoS+TITAN coin and let it slug it out in the altcoin market.
-
Many moons ago I suggested the that PTS and AGS be combined in a unified DPoS coin, and was immediately shot down by BM and his dad. Looks like I was not so crazy after all.
I still think you should launch it as a pure DPoS+TITAN coin and let it slug it out in the altcoin market.
You wasn't crazy, many community users propose this, but you should take in account that many month ago BitSharesX wasn't exists and was't stable like today. Left PTS as is give us ability to take 2 more snapshot for DNS/Vote and Music.
Even today if we move PTS into BTSX asset, to make next snapshots the devs need to develop tool for it.
-
With new proposal to move everyone to BTSX the market cap of PTS would be added to BTSX... may be the best option out there.
-
Hm, as I said, I like the general idea here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.0, I do hope that thread is not meant to show that everybody is just about splitting hairs and not able to reach any decision at all...
I personally have distribution that is perfect for my particular self interest, but I also do believe that changing any suggested number x3 or /3 or even more, will make most people at least whole and a very big majority far better off.
-
With new proposal to move everyone to BTSX the market cap of PTS would be added to BTSX... may be the best option out there.
are we certain that marketcap would go to btsx?
If not it is potentially a move that loses the marketcap of PTS and also the second token bitshares has in the top ten on coinmarketcap. Most people will wonder what happened to PTS and many of them (since many do not know much about bitshares) might consider this single event as a negative indicator for btsx.
-
With new proposal to move everyone to BTSX the market cap of PTS would be added to BTSX... may be the best option out there.
are we certain that marketcap would go to btsx?
If not it is potentially a move that loses the marketcap of PTS and also the second token bitshares has in the top ten on coinmarketcap. Most people will wonder what happened to PTS and many of them (since many do not know much about bitshares) might consider this single event as a negative indicator for btsx.
I think PTS should remain, in a different form maybe. A DPoS+TITAN coin should generate a lot of interest and increase the market cap. It will end up putting more money in I3 as they hold a ton of PTS.
I see the marketcaps of the coins in circulation, and its surprising how high they are considering the limited innovations (if any) in them. If they want they can actually turn PTS+AGS into Bitshares Me (or whatever new name), and it would be like a NXT competitor with the ability to get stakes in future DACs.
Inflating BTSX to try and get funds is the wrong way, IMO. I think the effort should be made to generate fund by increasing the value.
-
With new proposal to move everyone to BTSX the market cap of PTS would be added to BTSX... may be the best option out there.
+5% add pts to btsx... best idea so far.
-
You're out. Time for another batter. Man up and admit that you failed.
Just be glad that your nearest competitor to BitUSD did not simply fork DPOS BTSX, and slap the functionality of BitDNS/Music/Vote right into it and re-brand it PeerSharesUSD. Just breathe a sigh of relief and re-group for your second shot. Yes, you got lucky and still get a second chance to re-launch/brand (whatever you vote to do) your ecosystem. How many second chances do you normally get in life?
You have access to BitDNS/Music/Vote functionality? You should PM BM and start working on negotiations as you are obviously far far far ahead of I3.
..... You can get a lot of second chances in life.. it depends on how bad you fucked up the previous chance !
-
I don't know where this idea that BTSX delegates are unprofitable came from, but I've seen it in other threads as well. That's just completely false unless you're paying for an extremely expensive VPS that's completely unnecessary. You can run a delegate on 10$ a month in VPS costs if you want, and make over 100$ per month in fees, that's a far way from being unprofitable..
-
I don't know where this idea that BTSX delegates are unprofitable came from, but I've seen it in other threads as well. That's just completely false unless you're paying for an extremely expensive VPS that's completely unnecessary. You can run a delegate on 10$ a month in VPS costs if you want, and make over 100$ per month in fees, that's a far way from being unprofitable..
*confirmed*
cost: 130$ A YEAR
income .. 100$+ a month!
-
You're out. Time for another batter. Man up and admit that you failed.
Just be glad that your nearest competitor to BitUSD did not simply fork DPOS BTSX, and slap the functionality of BitDNS/Music/Vote right into it and re-brand it PeerSharesUSD. Just breathe a sigh of relief and re-group for your second shot. Yes, you got lucky and still get a second chance to re-launch/brand (whatever you vote to do) your ecosystem. How many second chances do you normally get in life?
You have access to BitDNS/Music/Vote functionality? You should PM BM and start working on negotiations as you are obviously far far far ahead of I3.
..... You can get a lot of second chances in life.. it depends on how bad you fucked up the previous chance !
obviously "stanquixote" has chosen to give himself a second chance as he has found a way to make a newbie account to post this--as opposed to the account from which opinions would likely be ignored due to ill will created in the community from the past.
Speaking of which.. grow a pair and let us know what your real account is (this will not happen because he does not have a pair)
-
even discussing about this topic is hurting the BTS ecosystem, I3 is loosing its credibility and fragmenting its support by ever changing rules and social contracts :(
-
even discussing about this topic is hurting the BTS ecosystem, I3 is loosing its credibility and fragmenting its support by ever changing rules and social contracts :(
In fact they are opening a DISCUSSION .. not changing the rules ... if you are yet unaware of this .. re-read the OP!
-
even discussing about this topic is hurting the BTS ecosystem, I3 is loosing its credibility and fragmenting its support by ever changing rules and social contracts :(
In fact they are opening a DISCUSSION .. not changing the rules ... if you are yet unaware of this .. re-read the OP!
That's all very well but it's creating anxiety in an illiquid market. Not everyone has time to consider market trivia in detail, they react to what they see; that's how markets work, it's a broad spread of reactions and opinion.
For example, one element of this proposal up for discussion looked to be a date of 5th Nov.. and suggesting that before gauging reactions, has not helped. Is that date still being considered?.. History will not care when whatever change is made does happen.
-
PTS is going to DIE?
-
PTS is going to DIE?
Yes .. and no ..
mining: will die definitely
the asset itself: will continue living on .. either as a part (sharedrop) in BTS or as an asset on the market ..
pts will not be worthless .. but if you lost faith in it .. I'll be happy to take them .. you can send them to the address in my signature :)
-
PTS must remain liquid and AGS must remain illiquid in order to honor the original agreement with investors of AGS/PTS. Anything else would be unfair and would result in a further loss of faith in the Bitshares ecosystem. Cross-post from the other thread:
AGS received a much larger allocation of DACs per dollar invested precisely because they are "locked" into the Bitshares ecosystem. Making them liquid after the fact is unfair. It essentially gives AGS holders all of the benefits of PTS without any of the downside. Here is the "company" analogy we like to use so much:
The Bitshares Corporation gives investors a choice between buying one of two corporate bonds, A and B. Bond A is perpetual and bond B is convertible. For this reason, A has a much higher yield than B. After the bonds are issued, the company turns around and says "just kidding," A is now also a convertible bond, though it keeps the higher yield. Just something to think about.
-
We need to focus and wrap up this discussion. Let's start organizing!
My call to action for PTS/AGS (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10203.msg133776#msg133776)
-
We need to focus and wrap up this discussion. Let's start organizing!
My call to action for PTS/AGS (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10203.msg133776#msg133776)
Agreed lets get this done and move forward.