BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: emski on October 19, 2014, 09:17:36 pm

Title: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: emski on October 19, 2014, 09:17:36 pm
Imagine the following:
As a user I'd like to have non-dillutable share in BTSX.
For example I want to buy 1% of all BTSX shares and retain this 1% regardless of future BTSX dillution.
Of course the price for such shares could be higher and they should not be allowed to vote.
Is such mechanic useful, beneficial ?
What do you think?
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: BldSwtTrs on October 19, 2014, 09:34:22 pm
Imagine the following:
As a user I'd like to have non-dillutable share in BTSX.
For example I want to buy 1% of all BTSX shares and retain this 1% regardless of future BTSX dillution.
Of course the price for such shares could be higher and they should not be allowed to vote.
Is such mechanic useful, beneficial ?
What do you think?
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.

I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: emski on October 19, 2014, 09:37:08 pm
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.

I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market

The cost should be higher initial price for such asset.

What you offer is interesting. I like it.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: bytemaster on October 19, 2014, 10:53:38 pm
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.

I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market

The cost should be higher initial price for such asset.

What you offer is interesting. I like it.

With a DAC there is no "before they are available on the open market"....
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: emski on October 19, 2014, 10:57:37 pm
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.

I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market

The cost should be higher initial price for such asset.

What you offer is interesting. I like it.

With a DAC there is no "before they are available on the open market"....

You can have dilution by issuing new shares. What if these new shares are available for purchase by stakeholders with bitUSD at current feed price?
What if the delegate/business proposal that would normally get these shares through dillution just get the bitUSD equivalent (that was provided by shareholders buying newly issued shares) ?
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: toast on October 19, 2014, 11:53:54 pm
BitBIP would let you hedge against dilution. We can have a perfect feed and have certain types of guarantees about the collateralization.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: tonyk on October 20, 2014, 12:22:39 am
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.

I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market

The cost should be higher initial price for such asset.

What you offer is interesting. I like it.

With a DAC there is no "before they are available on the open market"....

You can have dilution by issuing new shares. What if these new shares are available for purchase by stakeholders with bitUSD at current feed price?
What if the delegate/business proposal that would normally get these shares through dillution just get the bitUSD equivalent (that was provided by shareholders buying newly issued shares) ?

BitBIP would let you hedge against dilution. We can have a perfect feed and have certain types of guarantees about the collateralization.

Hmmm, interesting ideas... very much so!

Are the 'option contract' anywhere close to being ready?
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: Rune on October 20, 2014, 01:30:02 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: Stan on October 20, 2014, 01:55:39 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.

Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: BitAsset on October 20, 2014, 02:02:09 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.


If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..

I think it must be some other way to make it work.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: tonyk on October 20, 2014, 02:07:56 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.


If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..

I think it must be some other way to make it work.

Do you guys understand that each capital infusion is done by a vote by all shareholders?

And a huge % of all shareholders must agree on each  capital infusion for it to become reality?

And that each current shareholder has a well in advance notice to just cash out his gains and head for the door any time he disagrees with such capital infusion?
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: BitAsset on October 20, 2014, 02:16:25 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.


If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..

I think it must be some other way to make it work.

Do you guys understand that each capital infusion is done by a vote by all shareholders?

And a huge % of all shareholders must agree on each  capital infusion for it to become reality?

And that each current shareholder has a well in advance notice to just cash out his gains and head for the door any time he disagrees with such capital infusion?


There is no shareholder voting now, BM can do whatever he wants..
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: arhag on October 20, 2014, 04:17:23 am
BitBIP would let you hedge against dilution. We can have a perfect feed and have certain types of guarantees about the collateralization.

That doesn't make any sense. Either the shorts are guaranteed to lose or the longs are guaranteed to lose depending on which stage of the DAC we are in. If we are in the stage of the DAC where we are inflating, the shorts are guaranteed to lose in the 30 day period because there will be dilution during that period; thus no one will want to short. If we are in the stage of the DAC where we can afford to go back to deflating (return profits back to shareholders), the shorts would of course love to short BitBIP but no sane person would be willing to go long.

I was about to write that if BitBIP had some predefined inflation rate then it might work, but actually I am not sure about that either. I don't think the time scales match properly. One is on the time scale of 30 days, the other is a longer term plan by the shareholders on the direction of the DAC. I think the only time it makes sense is if new shorts are able to specify the current inflation rate as part of their formula. Then if shareholders decide to change the inflation rate in either direction, that is when either the long or the short would win/lose. But the problem with that is that it makes the long position nonfungible, so maybe this is more of a bond market.

The other big problem with the above is that even the long positions would still be exposed to some dilution even if their bet went in their favor, since if there is significant dilution at the time that they enter the long side of the contract then no short would be crazy enough to set up a contract at zero dilution because they would almost be certain to lose. But the hard-liners complaining about dilution don't seem to accept any dilution whatsoever. This is a philosophical problem that needs to be resolved. It is a vestige of still thinking about this like a cryptocurrency rather than a company. The way to resolve it is to either: make them see reason and understand why it is in their financial interest to allow for shareholder-controlled "capital infusion" (That's what we are calling dilution now right? I'll never get used to that.); or, let them get out of BTS (ideally into a BitAsset on the chain like BitGLD or BitUSD) and allow the rest of us to do what needs to be done.


Edit: Here is another idea which I haven't thought through too carefully, so there could be some critical flaws. I3 should figure out some growth curve for the value of BTS (in USD) if it was to try to survive without dilution. There should be some iteration between I3 and the community to come to a consensus on some curve so that the people who don't want dilution are satisfied with that growth curve and I3 believes they can achieve even faster growth than the curve if they have capital infusion available to them. Take this consensus growth curve and put it into the definition of a new BitAsset that is an investment vehicle for all the people who are really afraid of dilution. I3 can short that BitAsset and if their guess is correct they should profit from it (obviously anyone else is free to short it as well). The people who are afraid of dilution can go long on that BitAsset (and lose voting rights on matters such as capital infusion). There should be far more people willing to go long on that BitAsset than BitUSD for example, so I3 could potentially make more money going short on that BitAsset than they could by going short on BitUSD and having to pay high interest to compete with everyone else trying to short it. Also, the formula should extract the short term volatility of BTS/BitUSD and superimpose it on the growth curve, just to scare away anyone who is thinking of using this as anything other than a long-term investment asset. We don't want it to steal the demand for BitUSD.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: tonyk on October 20, 2014, 04:21:55 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.


If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..

I think it must be some other way to make it work.

Do you guys understand that each capital infusion is done by a vote by all shareholders?

And a huge % of all shareholders must agree on each  capital infusion for it to become reality?

And that each current shareholder has a well in advance notice to just cash out his gains and head for the door any time he disagrees with such capital infusion?


There is no shareholder voting now, BM can do whatever he wants..

And may I ask - what prevent you to vote with your feet?
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: Gentso1 on October 20, 2014, 04:49:10 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.


If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..

I think it must be some other way to make it work.

Do you guys understand that each capital infusion is done by a vote by all shareholders?

And a huge % of all shareholders must agree on each  capital infusion for it to become reality?

And that each current shareholder has a well in advance notice to just cash out his gains and head for the door any time he disagrees with such capital infusion?


There is no shareholder voting now, BM can do whatever he wants..

And may I ask - what prevent you to vote with your feet?
or with your shares?
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: emski on October 20, 2014, 06:40:14 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
Infusions are only done when shareholders believe there is more gain than pain.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: pc on October 20, 2014, 07:27:58 am
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
Infusions are only done when shareholders believe there is more gain than pain.
Infusions are done when enough shareholders are talked into believing there will be more gain than pain.

Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: jamesc on October 20, 2014, 10:40:00 am
I trust that buy backs will be on the table too.

I wonder if dilution could be done at a rate and interval at or below the amount of fees one would pay to trade out before it occurs.  This would be fair to holder s that will be active later in the game.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: stuartcharles on October 20, 2014, 12:35:54 pm
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.

The problem is ensuring the gain and pain are shared by the same people. I have invested time and money in i3's ideas and you seem sound people but we are interested in a trust less system. If i3 has enough voting power to decide which delegates are in and which are out, and could then vote for delegates which approve a big development fund for i3 then we do not have a trust less system.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: bytemaster on October 20, 2014, 01:00:42 pm
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: emski on October 20, 2014, 01:53:51 pm
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

What is wrong in offering all newly issued shares proportionally to shareholders at feed price ?
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: bytemaster on October 20, 2014, 02:40:46 pm
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

What is wrong in offering all newly issued shares proportionally to shareholders at feed price ?

That doesn't do anything other than a stock split... the purpose is "value transfer" from "everyone" to those providing capital infusion. 
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: emski on October 20, 2014, 02:53:37 pm
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

What is wrong in offering all newly issued shares proportionally to shareholders at feed price ?

That doesn't do anything other than a stock split... the purpose is "value transfer" from "everyone" to those providing capital infusion.

There is no stock split. Newly issued shares not claimed by current shareholders still go to those providing capital infusion. "Claimed" shares provide capital.

Update:
My idea better defined:
Business delegate defines 1% dilution (issues new shares).
Each week these shares are offered in internal market proportionally to current shareholders at feed price.
In the end of the week business delegate takes unclaimed shares and all bitUSD collected by selling the shares.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: stuartcharles on October 20, 2014, 03:14:09 pm
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

I'm not missing that point, i understand what you want and why you want it. Development is obviously essential but this is just money printing. Adding the value of one thing to another is great (facebook buys oculus rift or PTS + AGS = BTS) but just saying we are issuing x shares for development is not specific enough. All that will happen is shares value will be diluted.

As im typing this i think i see a solution. If a delegate were to ask for a specific sum to complete a specific development then it should work. It would work because in this case the market knows exactly what it is getting and at what price. Then once consensus has been reached and the funds issued the market can decide if it agrees with consensus (and adjust price) and again the market can readjust its opinion/price once the development has been completed and is adding value.

The delegate then earns a reputation based on what they propose and what they deliver.

For this to work I think you would not only have to hard code a % inflation but also hard code a maximum single award. Maybe the maximum award could be increased as reputation (number of completed projects) increases.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: amencon on October 20, 2014, 08:33:46 pm
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

I'm not missing that point, i understand what you want and why you want it. Development is obviously essential but this is just money printing. Adding the value of one thing to another is great (facebook buys oculus rift or PTS + AGS = BTS) but just saying we are issuing x shares for development is not specific enough. All that will happen is shares value will be diluted.

As im typing this i think i see a solution. If a delegate were to ask for a specific sum to complete a specific development then it should work. It would work because in this case the market knows exactly what it is getting and at what price. Then once consensus has been reached and the funds issued the market can decide if it agrees with consensus (and adjust price) and again the market can readjust its opinion/price once the development has been completed and is adding value.

The delegate then earns a reputation based on what they propose and what they deliver.

For this to work I think you would not only have to hard code a % inflation but also hard code a maximum single award. Maybe the maximum award could be increased as reputation (number of completed projects) increases.
If dilution becomes a done deal then I like your line of thinking with this.  I think it's important to put and many checks and balances in the code with maybe some hard limits.

Increasing hard limits based on increased reputation of delegate based on successful past dilution rounds also is a very interesting idea, not sure how difficult it would be from a technical standpoint though.  Not to mention how do you get stakeholders to vote on results of funding rounds?  Currently they can barely be bothered to vote out non-performing delegates as far as price feeds and other metrics, and those are irrefutable hard numbers that couldn't be easier to read at bitsharesblocks.com.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: luckybit on October 20, 2014, 09:58:31 pm
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.

If the value goes up but it can also go down.
It's not guaranteed to go up so there is risk.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: Ander on October 20, 2014, 11:36:28 pm
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.


To be fair, everyone needs to be equal.  1 share is 1 share.  Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for. 
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: amencon on October 21, 2014, 04:26:19 am
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.


To be fair, everyone needs to be equal.  1 share is 1 share.  Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.

Having 2 "classes" of tokens seems like a horrible mess, the point of all of this is to simplify and condense right?  After all the turmoil let's at least hit that mark haha.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: emski on October 21, 2014, 06:36:31 am
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.


To be fair, everyone needs to be equal.  1 share is 1 share.  Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.

Having 2 "classes" of tokens seems like a horrible mess, the point of all of this is to simplify and condense right?  After all the turmoil let's at least hit that mark haha.

One of the proposals was to proportionally offer newly issues shares to ALL of the shareholders at feed price BEFORE they are offered to anyone else. In this all shares are identical. And there is no difference between former AGS/PTS and BTSX => everything is equal BTS.
Title: Re: Non-Dillutable BTSX
Post by: amencon on October 21, 2014, 07:38:01 am
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.


To be fair, everyone needs to be equal.  1 share is 1 share.  Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.

Having 2 "classes" of tokens seems like a horrible mess, the point of all of this is to simplify and condense right?  After all the turmoil let's at least hit that mark haha.

One of the proposals was to proportionally offer newly issues shares to ALL of the shareholders at feed price BEFORE they are offered to anyone else. In this all shares are identical. And there is no difference between former AGS/PTS and BTSX => everything is equal BTS.
Makes sense to me.  As long as we are going with a single DAC system there doesn't seem to be any point to keeping PTS and AGS around, might as well roll it all into a single system.