There should be a short pithy description of the proposal. Trouble atm is broad spread of perception. We need to vote on something definite, if a vote is really appropriate. Also, I think the nature of PTS/AGS changing is distinct from the merger of DAC under one umberella.
+5%+5% +5%
Thanks fuzzy for the initiative ! Hope it will give a good overview of what people really think about BM's proposal
It is merger and acquisition.
3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes
It is merger and acquisition.
Nothing is merged or acquired:3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes
IOW: throw on the printing press and spend the resulting notes on marketing. That's pump&dump par excellence.
3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes
It is merger and acquisition.
Nothing is merged or acquired:3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes
IOW: throw on the printing press and spend the resulting notes on marketing. That's pump&dump par excellence.3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes
It is merger and acquisition.
Nothing is merged or acquired:3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes
IOW: throw on the printing press and spend the resulting notes on marketing. That's pump&dump par excellence.3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes
That only means it would be a majority-approved pump&dump.
The problem here is that the (market) value of the DAC is not so much driven by the services it offers, but by marketing. It is easy to convince a majority with the promise of a tenfold increase in market value in combination with e. g. 10% dilution. In the long run this will destroy the DAC, though, because there is no substance in it for supporting the (temporarily) higher market value.
Now vote only shows that many holders of AGS and BTSX, they are all standing on their own perspective. I hope 3I can consider PTS holders feel, after all PTS is 3I earliest supporters and advocates
Now vote only shows that many holders of AGS and BTSX, they are all standing on their own perspective. I hope 3I can consider PTS holders feel, after all PTS is 3I earliest supporters and advocates
Though I am interested in your opinions here (I hold equal weight in both btsx and pts), I do not know that I agree with the premise that PTS is playing second fiddle to AGS or btsx..
Can you explain further?
Also...I am an AGS holder too...because I gave away the right to liquidity to fund the construction of the DACs we see today. That was a trade off and could be considered a fair trade by those who donated to AGS.
Now vote only shows that many holders of AGS and BTSX, they are all standing on their own perspective. I hope 3I can consider PTS holders feel, after all PTS is 3I earliest supporters and advocates
Though I am interested in your opinions here (I hold equal weight in both btsx and pts), I do not know that I agree with the premise that PTS is playing second fiddle to AGS or btsx..
Can you explain further?
Also...I am an AGS holder too...because I gave away the right to liquidity to fund the construction of the DACs we see today. That was a trade off and could be considered a fair trade by those who donated to AGS.
Keep in mind that most of the PTS donated to AGS are still in our war chest for everybody to see. They are a key component of our development funds. We also donated our own funds to AGS pre and post 2/18 and have since bought a large stake of BTSX. That should provide comfort that we have skin in all three games. :)
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?
Only the original DAC and PTS can be traded, now change AGS into BTSX, is that AGS can also be traded? Is it not so?
Now vote only shows that many holders of AGS and BTSX, they are all standing on their own perspective. I hope 3I can consider PTS holders feel, after all PTS is 3I earliest supporters and advocates
Though I am interested in your opinions here (I hold equal weight in both btsx and pts), I do not know that I agree with the premise that PTS is playing second fiddle to AGS or btsx..
Can you explain further?
Also...I am an AGS holder too...because I gave away the right to liquidity to fund the construction of the DACs we see today. That was a trade off and could be considered a fair trade by those who donated to AGS.
Keep in mind that most of the PTS donated to AGS are still in our war chest for everybody to see. They are a key component of our development funds. We also donated our own funds to AGS pre and post 2/18 and have since bought a large stake of BTSX. That should provide comfort that we have skin in all three games. :)
I'm having a real hard time believing this can be decided on the forums and centrally.
AGS-donators and PTS holders can sign messages with their keys and cast their votes weighted with their stake.
If DPOS offers a similar mechanic, the vote can be cast with actual stakes instead of random people from the internet having opinions on a forum.
Now vote only shows that many holders of AGS and BTSX, they are all standing on their own perspective. I hope 3I can consider PTS holders feel, after all PTS is 3I earliest supporters and advocates
Though I am interested in your opinions here (I hold equal weight in both btsx and pts), I do not know that I agree with the premise that PTS is playing second fiddle to AGS or btsx..
Can you explain further?
Also...I am an AGS holder too...because I gave away the right to liquidity to fund the construction of the DACs we see today. That was a trade off and could be considered a fair trade by those who donated to AGS.
Keep in mind that most of the PTS donated to AGS are still in our war chest for everybody to see. They are a key component of our development funds. We also donated our own funds to AGS pre and post 2/18 and have since bought a large stake of BTSX. That should provide comfort that we have skin in all three games. :)
TBH, this is actually not very comforting. After all, it shows you are quite diversified/protected, so from that standpoint you'd be equally happy with almost any allocation, whether fair or not.
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?
I still do not see how it is unfair as those who donated to AGS still did so with the knowledge that they were risking FAR more than PTS. PTS holders who have no AGS will have a hard time understanding that the relative risk they had by holding PTS could be liquidated at any time during the most critical growth phases of the project (when risk was Highest)...AGS knew the risk and took it anyway fully expecting to never be made liquid. So to me it comes down to loyalty (and if loyalty deserves higher rewards)...but that is just me and as you probably know by now I'm borderline crazy in my loyalties sometimes.
P.S. even if AGS are made liquid, I have no intention of liquidating them. I want to see what an older, wiser Bytemaster has in store for me 15 years from now...
When i first bought into the idea of bitshares I thought it was basically what is being described now - a super ecosystem of core technologies for developers to launch DACs. Then i came to see how thats not what it really was and while I did not sale or anything, because I really like a lot of the ideas behind DACs, it was disappointing to see how all these core technologies were being used basically as separate alt coins that you had to individually invest in.
So i am in favor of a Super Dac with core technologies included that other DACs can take advantage of. If that's whats being described and I think it is...
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?
I still do not see how it is unfair as those who donated to AGS still did so with the knowledge that they were risking FAR more than PTS. PTS holders who have no AGS will have a hard time understanding that the relative risk they had by holding PTS could be liquidated at any time during the most critical growth phases of the project (when risk was Highest)...AGS knew the risk and took it anyway fully expecting to never be made liquid. So to me it comes down to loyalty (and if loyalty deserves higher rewards)...but that is just me and as you probably know by now I'm borderline crazy in my loyalties sometimes.
P.S. even if AGS are made liquid, I have no intention of liquidating them. I want to see what an older, wiser Bytemaster has in store for me 15 years from now...
When I see comments like this I really lose faith in this forum... Let me explain it very simply for you:
Your "high risk" investment in AGS was based on a social contract that required you to be "locked in" to your investment perpetually. In exchange for this "high risk" investment, you received 6X, let me repeat - 6 times, more equity than PTS investors for every dollar you spent. As a result, you now own 6X more BTSX for every dollar you invested. Now you are proposing that we "gift" AGS holders the liquidity of PTS, violate the social contract, AND allow you to maintain your 6X equity in not only future DACS, but also BTSX! So you get to double dip into BTSX, you get liquidity, you keep your 6X equity, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and sadly at the expense of PTS holders when half of your friends liquidate (please don't argue this if you value your reputation).
Still don't see it?
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?
I still do not see how it is unfair as those who donated to AGS still did so with the knowledge that they were risking FAR more than PTS. PTS holders who have no AGS will have a hard time understanding that the relative risk they had by holding PTS could be liquidated at any time during the most critical growth phases of the project (when risk was Highest)...AGS knew the risk and took it anyway fully expecting to never be made liquid. So to me it comes down to loyalty (and if loyalty deserves higher rewards)...but that is just me and as you probably know by now I'm borderline crazy in my loyalties sometimes.
P.S. even if AGS are made liquid, I have no intention of liquidating them. I want to see what an older, wiser Bytemaster has in store for me 15 years from now...
When I see comments like this I really lose faith in this forum... Let me explain it very simply for you:
Your "high risk" investment in AGS was based on a social contract that required you to be "locked in" to your investment perpetually. In exchange for this "high risk" investment, you received 6X, let me repeat - 6 times, more equity than PTS investors for every dollar you spent. As a result, you now own 6X more BTSX for every dollar you invested. Now you are proposing that we "gift" AGS holders the liquidity of PTS, violate the social contract, AND allow you to maintain your 6X equity in not only future DACS, but also BTSX! So you get to double dip into BTSX, you get liquidity, you keep your 6X equity, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and sadly at the expense of PTS holders when half of your friends liquidate (please don't argue this if you value your reputation).
Still don't see it?
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?
I still do not see how it is unfair as those who donated to AGS still did so with the knowledge that they were risking FAR more than PTS. PTS holders who have no AGS will have a hard time understanding that the relative risk they had by holding PTS could be liquidated at any time during the most critical growth phases of the project (when risk was Highest)...AGS knew the risk and took it anyway fully expecting to never be made liquid. So to me it comes down to loyalty (and if loyalty deserves higher rewards)...but that is just me and as you probably know by now I'm borderline crazy in my loyalties sometimes.
P.S. even if AGS are made liquid, I have no intention of liquidating them. I want to see what an older, wiser Bytemaster has in store for me 15 years from now...
When I see comments like this I really lose faith in this forum... Let me explain it very simply for you:
Your "high risk" investment in AGS was based on a social contract that required you to be "locked in" to your investment perpetually. In exchange for this "high risk" investment, you received 6X, let me repeat - 6 times, more equity than PTS investors for every dollar you spent. As a result, you now own 6X more BTSX for every dollar you invested. Now you are proposing that we "gift" AGS holders the liquidity of PTS, violate the social contract, AND allow you to maintain your 6X equity in not only future DACS, but also BTSX! So you get to double dip into BTSX, you get liquidity, you keep your 6X equity, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and sadly at the expense of PTS holders when half of your friends liquidate (please don't argue this if you value your reputation).
Still don't see it?
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?
I still do not see how it is unfair as those who donated to AGS still did so with the knowledge that they were risking FAR more than PTS. PTS holders who have no AGS will have a hard time understanding that the relative risk they had by holding PTS could be liquidated at any time during the most critical growth phases of the project (when risk was Highest)...AGS knew the risk and took it anyway fully expecting to never be made liquid. So to me it comes down to loyalty (and if loyalty deserves higher rewards)...but that is just me and as you probably know by now I'm borderline crazy in my loyalties sometimes.
P.S. even if AGS are made liquid, I have no intention of liquidating them. I want to see what an older, wiser Bytemaster has in store for me 15 years from now...
When I see comments like this I really lose faith in this forum... Let me explain it very simply for you:
Your "high risk" investment in AGS was based on a social contract that required you to be "locked in" to your investment perpetually. In exchange for this "high risk" investment, you received 6X, let me repeat - 6 times, more equity than PTS investors for every dollar you spent. As a result, you now own 6X more BTSX for every dollar you invested. Now you are proposing that we "gift" AGS holders the liquidity of PTS, violate the social contract, AND allow you to maintain your 6X equity in not only future DACS, but also BTSX! So you get to double dip into BTSX, you get liquidity, you keep your 6X equity, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and sadly at the expense of PTS holders when half of your friends liquidate (please don't argue this if you value your reputation).
Still don't see it?
So how much do you think your PTS and resulting BTSX stake was worth without AGS? AGS donators could just as well turn around and fling your argument right back at you. How much of the development was actually paid for with PTS? AGS could argue that PTS are essentially free-loaders, but I don't see how that will improve this discussion all that much.
Credibility is worthless on forums anyway, only arguments should count in this. I personally don't care much for people flaunting their so called reputation and credibility anyway and I hope that will never turn into the accepted measuring stick. Eventhough I'm proven wrong time and time again.
I don't want a liquid AGS. That's why i don't hold anymore PTS. Can't AGS just remain part of the newer improved BTS with the same social consensus / future DAC honor rules? Surely this is not rocket science?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm re-posting this here so that it doesn't get lost in a thread before people can read it.
As I write this, the valuations on Coinmarketcap would seem to imply a naive marketcap-based allocation of about 10% to PTS, 10% to AGS, and 80% to BTSX. Here is a summary of the main reasons why this would be grossly unfair to PTS/AGS:
1. The proposed merger is in essence like an unsolicited takeover, to use the company metaphor, and PTS and AGS are not being given a chance to vote their approval. (I don't call it a "hostile" takeover because there is no management team for PTS/AGS in place to oppose it). Academic studies of large samples of corporate takeovers have shown that unsolicited takeovers typically require substantial premiums, say 40% or more, above the average pre-offer share price.
2. The coinmarketcap valuation of PTS likely understates the true fundamental value of Protoshares (and, by extension, Angelshares). This is because PTS is far less liquid than BTSX. Whether you look at dollar volume of trade or the order book on BTer, the conclusion is the same: PTS has a large built-in illiquidity discount relative to BTSX.
3. The proposed merger would basically discard the original social consensus (and perhaps try to forge a new one). The social consensus is an inherent property of PTS and AGS, and BTSX has certainly derived some value from "free riding" on it. None of what we have now would be possible without the cornerstone laid by PTS and AGS. Getting rid of the social consensus has a price that should also be factored in.
4. The new BTS entity being formed is not just BTSX 2.0. It is a much broader conglomerate that goes beyond banking and exchange. From this perspective, it is more like a merger of equals than a one-sided acquisition. Based on Bytemaster's recent views, we can expect that (1) a separately developed VOTE DAC would achieve a valuation equaling or exceeding BTSX, and (2) in the future, with a trillion dollar industry, the value would be spread evenly among a dozen or so different DACS rather than being concentrated in BTSX.
So, PTS and AGS should be fully compensated for the substantial value that they are giving up. A simple example may help illustrate. Suppose that, without the merger, eventually BTSX = 100 and VOTE = 100. Suppose conservatively that all future DACS, large and small, would together be 200 (we can exclude DNS and MUSIC since the snapshots already occurred and we're focusing on future valuation). Now suppose that, with the merger, the combined BTS is 250 (there are additional synergies from eliminating competition between BTSX and VOTE). Finally, let's suppose chains inherit 10% (or 20% in the case of BTS).
Scenario A: with a merger, assuming an 80/10/10 allocation of BTS:
BTSX gets: 80%*250 + 80%*20%*200 = 232
PTS/AGS get: 20%*250 + 20%*20%*200 = 58
Scenario B: without a merger, VOTE is developed as competitor to BTSX, and PTS, AGS each get 30% of VOTE:
BTSX gets: 100
PTS/AGS get: 60%*100 + 20%*200 = 100
The gains from the merger in Scenario A should be measured relative to values in the no-merger Scenario B, which is the default/fallback outcome (i.e., what would happen if the merger were not feasible). The relevant issue is, how much do parties gain or lose from choosing Scenario A versus Scenario B? Even if you adjust the numbers a bit, it's clear the 80/10/10 is woefully inadequate to compensate PTS and AGS for moving to Scenario A from Scenario B. And it becomes even more unfair the greater the assumed value of all future DACS.
So, the bottom line is, absolutely the merger should be done. It will yield great benefits in terms of branding, marketing, and incentives. But let's make sure we compensate PTS and AGS fairly and generously for the right to buy them out and eliminate them from the face of the earth.
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.
The vesting will make some people very very angry.
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.
The vesting will make some people very very angry.
Agreed. It's like "Here's your money, but you cannot spend it. HAHA"
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.
The vesting will make some people very very angry.
Agreed. It's like "Here's your money, but you cannot spend it. HAHA"
it does not apply for BTSX
Fuzz,
You obviously still do not get what Canonizer.com can do, otherwise you would have attempted to do this survey with a more modern tool like Canonizer.com.
These issues are the biggest problem facing the crypto currency movement, and we can't take over the world till we get them solved in a very amplify the wisdom of everyone way. The expert opinion is that mining is bad, but the Bitcoin herd is still running towards mining like a bunch of lemmings about to jump off the cliff and become very poor, throwing away millions of $$$. Why is it that this problem can't be solved, without some set of experts like The bytemaster and team having to invest huge amounts of effort and capital to get over the huge barrier of entry to create a viable competitor that is strong enough to be able to destroy mining and Bitcoin with it?
And, sure, the bytemaster is brilliant, and we are very agile, while we are small, so we may be able to kill mining (and bitcoin with it), but then what? How do we scale that? This dilution issue (or some other similar issue in the future) could kill bitshares, just like mining is about to kill Bitcoin by making it vulnerable to Bitshares like competition, or at best fracture the community.
Let me list just a few of the problems with attempting to quantitatively determine and build consensus in this way.
- Not Quantitative: When The bytemaster makes proposals like he does to the forum in this way, if people spend way too much time, they may be able to determine how much consensus there is for or against the idea. But how much time and effort, and how likely is someone to make a mistake and get it wrong, or read the crowd incorrectly?
- Does not scale: There are only at about 100 people participating in this process. We need to be able to scale this to millions of people and more, in a way that amplifies everyone's wisdom, and motivates everyone to be very involved in the process. Even with 100 people participating, nobody knows who is in what camp, how much and what they are willing to give up, what, exactly, would be required to get the various people in each apposing camp to get on board, and so on.
- Destroys consensus: Doing things this way just destroys consensus, or at least that's the way it always appears. People get the perception that there are hundreds of different points of view, and more. If there are already 1000 posts, nobody will want to post another post as nobody can read 1000 posts, let alone one more. Nobody can agree on even definitions, let alone what each "yes" vs "no" camp means, and so on. When, in reality, there is always way more consensus than is apparent. The important things is, we need to be able to measure and build consensus, quantitatively, from the bottom up.
- People Loose Interests: If you do not have a constantly improving, easy to follow system, people will lose interest. Each of the yet to be defined camps or positions, must be able to improve in description, and be stated very definitively and consisely, in a way that ensures everyone in the camp definitely agrees. The camp descriptions must be able to change and improve, by anyone, in a wiki way, while insuring unanimous agreement by everyone in the camp. I you can't do that in an efficient way, people will not have enough time to do due diligence, and just not participate.
- Survey Not Dynamic: People must be able to propose more than just yes / no, and what the yes and no camps mean must be able to change, dynamically, as more consensus is built. Even the top level question, or goal of the question must change, from the bottom up, in a wiki way, that insures everyone agrees with the change.
Modern systems like the one we are developing with Canonizer.com can amplify the wisdom of the crowd and solve all these problems, enabling the herd to change direction very rapidly and efficiently. Sure, Canonizer.com is just a prototype, hard to use, and people need to get up the huge learning curve about how to communicate and build consensus, concisely and quantitatively, which takes some work. But it can be done and more effort can be put towards developing such system enabling is to communicate concisely and quantitatively.
And the first Crypto Currency community to learn how to most effectively do this in a way that scales in agile, intelligent ways, will be the first one to rapidly take crypto currency to the next level (the next level being taking over all hierarchies and bureaucracies, and becoming the new rulers of the world)
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.
The vesting will make some people very very angry.
Agreed. It's like "Here's your money, but you cannot spend it. HAHA"
it does not apply for BTSX
liondani - I am absolutely mad right now, because they announced the merger and liquidity I was like cool!
I converted a lot of BTSX into PTS. Right after that they announce the vesting, so PTS tanked.
Bravo! What a way to treat supporters.
I converted a lot of BTSX into PTS. Right after that they announce the vesting, so PTS tanked.
Bravo! What a way to treat supporters.
Fuzz,
You obviously still do not get what Canonizer.com can do, otherwise you would have attempted to do this survey with a more modern tool like Canonizer.com.
These issues are the biggest problem facing the crypto currency movement, and we can't take over the world till we get them solved in a very amplify the wisdom of everyone way. The expert opinion is that mining is bad, but the Bitcoin herd is still running towards mining like a bunch of lemmings about to jump off the cliff and become very poor, throwing away millions of $$$. Why is it that this problem can't be solved, without some set of experts like The bytemaster and team having to invest huge amounts of effort and capital to get over the huge barrier of entry to create a viable competitor that is strong enough to be able to destroy mining and Bitcoin with it?
And, sure, the bytemaster is brilliant, and we are very agile, while we are small, so we may be able to kill mining (and bitcoin with it), but then what? How do we scale that? This dilution issue (or some other similar issue in the future) could kill bitshares, just like mining is about to kill Bitcoin by making it vulnerable to Bitshares like competition, or at best fracture the community.
Let me list just a few of the problems with attempting to quantitatively determine and build consensus in this way.
- Not Quantitative: When The bytemaster makes proposals like he does to the forum in this way, if people spend way too much time, they may be able to determine how much consensus there is for or against the idea. But how much time and effort, and how likely is someone to make a mistake and get it wrong, or read the crowd incorrectly?
- Does not scale: There are only at about 100 people participating in this process. We need to be able to scale this to millions of people and more, in a way that amplifies everyone's wisdom, and motivates everyone to be very involved in the process. Even with 100 people participating, nobody knows who is in what camp, how much and what they are willing to give up, what, exactly, would be required to get the various people in each apposing camp to get on board, and so on.
- Destroys consensus: Doing things this way just destroys consensus, or at least that's the way it always appears. People get the perception that there are hundreds of different points of view, and more. If there are already 1000 posts, nobody will want to post another post as nobody can read 1000 posts, let alone one more. Nobody can agree on even definitions, let alone what each "yes" vs "no" camp means, and so on. When, in reality, there is always way more consensus than is apparent. The important things is, we need to be able to measure and build consensus, quantitatively, from the bottom up.
- People Loose Interests: If you do not have a constantly improving, easy to follow system, people will lose interest. Each of the yet to be defined camps or positions, must be able to improve in description, and be stated very definitively and consisely, in a way that ensures everyone in the camp definitely agrees. The camp descriptions must be able to change and improve, by anyone, in a wiki way, while insuring unanimous agreement by everyone in the camp. I you can't do that in an efficient way, people will not have enough time to do due diligence, and just not participate.
- Survey Not Dynamic: People must be able to propose more than just yes / no, and what the yes and no camps mean must be able to change, dynamically, as more consensus is built. Even the top level question, or goal of the question must change, from the bottom up, in a wiki way, that insures everyone agrees with the change.
Modern systems like the one we are developing with Canonizer.com can amplify the wisdom of the crowd and solve all these problems, enabling the herd to change direction very rapidly and efficiently. Sure, Canonizer.com is just a prototype, hard to use, and people need to get up the huge learning curve about how to communicate and build consensus, concisely and quantitatively, which takes some work. But it can be done and more effort can be put towards developing such system enabling is to communicate concisely and quantitatively.
And the first Crypto Currency community to learn how to most effectively do this in a way that scales in agile, intelligent ways, will be the first one to rapidly take crypto currency to the next level (the next level being taking over all hierarchies and bureaucracies, and becoming the new rulers of the world)
I do get what cannonizer can do Brent trust me. I am not an expert on its use, however, on how to effectively maximize its utility. You want to start one?
Oh and as for alphabar...im too busy trying to help unite the community to deal with your angry posts. I have and continue to sacrifice for this project...along with a great many others on this forum (who do even more). Please dont talk to us like we are greedy a-holes who do not care about the success of this project. I sincerely hope we can all take a deep breath and recognize the stakes...and im not talking to our pockets...
At this point "fair" is long out the window anyway.
Very true. Just because I invested my PTS for the reasons and in the manner I did, doesn't mean someone else didn't use that liquidity to time snapshots to perfection and made a bundle and greatly increased his stake up to this point.At this point "fair" is long out the window anyway.
+5%
"fair" is pretty subjective. I'd reckon the people who bought into Cannibascoin are probably feeling about the same way right now.
1) You have to discount AGS in order to compensate for "gifting" them with liquidity. The exact value of this discount is subjective, but I would argue that this value is objectively NON-ZERO.
2) Now we have BM proposing that the currently liquid PTS would actually be subject to a vesting period! Wow, this tips the scales even further. How much? I dunno, but again this is a NON-ZERO amount.
"Fair" is certainly subjective, but I would argue that there is a floor and a ceiling on the acceptable range of subjectivity. Anything outside of those extreme boundaries I would label as "provably" unfair. For example, we know that AGS and PTS were promised at least 10% in future DACs. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL it would make sense to grant them equal stake in the SuperDAC. But all else is not equal for the following reasons:Sounds sensible. You have any plans of taking a crack at an allocation distribution layout? I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers myself tonight or writing up any justifications for them, but I think you'd probably do a good job.
1) You have to discount AGS in order to compensate for "gifting" them with liquidity. The exact value of this discount is subjective, but I would argue that this value is objectively NON-ZERO.
2) Now we have BM proposing that the currently liquid PTS would actually be subject to a vesting period! Wow, this tips the scales even further. How much? I dunno, but again this is a NON-ZERO amount.
As a corollary I would argue that the liquidity discount from point #1 was actually decided by the market already. The AVG dollar-for-dollar difference in stake between AGS and PTS investment was due solely to the fact that AGS was "locked in" (illiquid). This premium paid by PTS investors is in fact the experimentally proven value of liquidity.
I hold AGS PTS and BTSX, and what I can see is some poor excuses from people holding mostly pts to get a better deal, at least that's the feeling I get reading some posts.
I must remind to all those pts only, holders out there that the social consensus says to distribute an equal amount to both AGS and PTS holders from a new DAC, when the DAC is out both can liquidate the shares they got from this DAC. The only difference is that you can liquidate your pts at any point but you WILL NOT get any shares from future DACs.
As someone that holds both pts and ags (and btsx) I have a question for you.... why don't you ask/demand the obvious, to be able to liquidate your newly bts acquired from pts from day 1 and instead you are asking to get a better deal?
Do you really think the current deal is unfair to you or you are just greedy? I believe that the BM deal is actually fair for everyone, or as close to fair as it can get.
BM has my vote.
Fu--c-k +5%That is hell of a contribution to the discussion .. would you take at least the same amount of time it took you to register your account and write something _valuable_!?
事实证明：BM是一头猪！
bts game over!And you registered here to tell us this?! Was worth it .. for sure!
Fu--c-k +5%That is hell of a contribution to the discussion .. would you take at least the same amount of time it took you to register your account and write something _valuable_!?
事实证明：BM是一头猪！
//edit: your lucky I am not a mod .. I wouldn't tolerateusers like youposts like that
(http://ww1.sinaimg.cn/mw1024/e2700da8jw1elk84hn6x4j20mm0edwha.jpg)
Fuzz,
You obviously still do not get what Canonizer.com can do, otherwise you would have attempted to do this survey with a more modern tool like Canonizer.com.
These issues are the biggest problem facing the crypto currency movement, and we can't take over the world till we get them solved in a very amplify the wisdom of everyone way. The expert opinion is that mining is bad, but the Bitcoin herd is still running towards mining like a bunch of lemmings about to jump off the cliff and become very poor, throwing away millions of $$$. Why is it that this problem can't be solved, without some set of experts like The bytemaster and team having to invest huge amounts of effort and capital to get over the huge barrier of entry to create a viable competitor that is strong enough to be able to destroy mining and Bitcoin with it?
And, sure, the bytemaster is brilliant, and we are very agile, while we are small, so we may be able to kill mining (and bitcoin with it), but then what? How do we scale that? This dilution issue (or some other similar issue in the future) could kill bitshares, just like mining is about to kill Bitcoin by making it vulnerable to Bitshares like competition, or at best fracture the community.
Let me list just a few of the problems with attempting to quantitatively determine and build consensus in this way.
- Not Quantitative: When The bytemaster makes proposals like he does to the forum in this way, if people spend way too much time, they may be able to determine how much consensus there is for or against the idea. But how much time and effort, and how likely is someone to make a mistake and get it wrong, or read the crowd incorrectly?
- Does not scale: There are only at about 100 people participating in this process. We need to be able to scale this to millions of people and more, in a way that amplifies everyone's wisdom, and motivates everyone to be very involved in the process. Even with 100 people participating, nobody knows who is in what camp, how much and what they are willing to give up, what, exactly, would be required to get the various people in each apposing camp to get on board, and so on.
- Destroys consensus: Doing things this way just destroys consensus, or at least that's the way it always appears. People get the perception that there are hundreds of different points of view, and more. If there are already 1000 posts, nobody will want to post another post as nobody can read 1000 posts, let alone one more. Nobody can agree on even definitions, let alone what each "yes" vs "no" camp means, and so on. When, in reality, there is always way more consensus than is apparent. The important things is, we need to be able to measure and build consensus, quantitatively, from the bottom up.
- People Loose Interests: If you do not have a constantly improving, easy to follow system, people will lose interest. Each of the yet to be defined camps or positions, must be able to improve in description, and be stated very definitively and consisely, in a way that ensures everyone in the camp definitely agrees. The camp descriptions must be able to change and improve, by anyone, in a wiki way, while insuring unanimous agreement by everyone in the camp. I you can't do that in an efficient way, people will not have enough time to do due diligence, and just not participate.
- Survey Not Dynamic: People must be able to propose more than just yes / no, and what the yes and no camps mean must be able to change, dynamically, as more consensus is built. Even the top level question, or goal of the question must change, from the bottom up, in a wiki way, that insures everyone agrees with the change.
Modern systems like the one we are developing with Canonizer.com can amplify the wisdom of the crowd and solve all these problems, enabling the herd to change direction very rapidly and efficiently. Sure, Canonizer.com is just a prototype, hard to use, and people need to get up the huge learning curve about how to communicate and build consensus, concisely and quantitatively, which takes some work. But it can be done and more effort can be put towards developing such system enabling is to communicate concisely and quantitatively.
And the first Crypto Currency community to learn how to most effectively do this in a way that scales in agile, intelligent ways, will be the first one to rapidly take crypto currency to the next level (the next level being taking over all hierarchies and bureaucracies, and becoming the new rulers of the world)
I do get what cannonizer can do Brent trust me. I am not an expert on its use, however, on how to effectively maximize its utility. You want to start one?
Oh and as for alphabar...im too busy trying to help unite the community to deal with your angry posts. I have and continue to sacrifice for this project...along with a great many others on this forum (who do even more). Please dont talk to us like we are greedy a-holes who do not care about the success of this project. I sincerely hope we can all take a deep breath and recognize the stakes...and im not talking to our pockets...
I'm not speaking to your intentions, just your actions. You may intend to "unite the community", but you are alienating a huge segment of an already small group of Bitshares stakeholders. When somebody brings up a valid and objective argument and you ignore it by saying "good enough" or "it's the best we can do", don't be surprised if there is a backlash. The allocation issue doesn't take effort. Nobody is criticizing you for not trying hard enough. It's about what is equitable and fair, and your proposal isn't even close.
When this poll is completed, I intend to create and post a thread for people to propose distribution models to current holders of all bitshares tokens (PTS/AGS/BTSX/DNS...etc)
At that point, we will consolidate and have a poll to choose between them. If you are interested in proposing your own model, please begin preparing your statements and reasons.
Each will need to have its own thread so others in the community can discuss--this current poll is only to gauge community interest in moving to a "super"chain (BTS) on that basis ALONE
Such a foolish idea to change BTSX.
When this poll is completed, I intend to create and post a thread for people to propose distribution models to current holders of all bitshares tokens (PTS/AGS/BTSX/DNS...etc)
At that point, we will consolidate and have a poll to choose between them. If you are interested in proposing your own model, please begin preparing your statements and reasons.
Each will need to have its own thread so others in the community can discuss--this current poll is only to gauge community interest in moving to a "super"chain (BTS) on that basis ALONE
Such a foolish idea to change BTSX.
BTSX seems not a decentrated coin, but a more concentrated coin which were determined by 3I
Today we can increase the amount by 20%, next day we can change it to 100%.
Can you think about what will happen if btc increased by 20%.
we should obey the rules of the game, no matter it is good or not.
The stabilization (stable wallet and stable rules) makes the price stable. And people will invest it.
If rules are easy to be changed, who knows what will happen.
Maybe next month BTS will become BTS2 if BM got another idea.
Please concentrate on the stability of the wallet, promote BTS to a real English market (not polo,bittrex, but btc-e, bitstamp etc.)
The people who will become rich from this were able to see the correct metaphor: MS-DOS in 1981.
The people who will gain nothing from this will be those who kept insisting on using the wrong metaphor.
this is off topic but no one is replying the bitshares thread.. been trying to withdraw pts from my wallet to bter, its been over an hour and not a single confirmation.. is PTS dead?
So, I've changed my mind and very much in support of merger now. Given what I've seen today, I am very encouraged +5% +5% +5% Well done to all core staff for their arguing the case and the actions taken. :D
Have you removed and re-submitted your vote in this poll?
OK, we've thrown up a first stab at a start of a consensus building survey topic on this bitshares merger proposal at Canonizer.com titled: " BTS Dilution / Merger Survey":
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160
I've started by splitting the general, "should BtsX ever be diluted" at the most important level, as that seems to be the most important and fundamental issue of disagreement. We plan to create a sub camp of the "Rarely Delute" camp representing the state of the art of the leading consensus camp of exactly what, how, and when... it will be done. Now we need someone to provide a concise description of their view of the state of the art of what is being or what should be proposed so we can start building and tracking how much consensus, we can achieve for this and all competing proposals.
As always, this is just the first draft stab at a consensus building survey topic. Anything can change at any time by anyone. Hopefully people will see a better way of doing things and help make the improvements in a wiki way. Lots of small contributions and people joining camps are what will make this great and amplify everyone's wisdom on what is the best thing to do. If a camp representing what you believe is already there, sign and join it to help it along. If your exact view isn't yet included, please help to get that view started, so others can start building expert consensus around the best ideas.
+5%OK, we've thrown up a first stab at a start of a consensus building survey topic on this bitshares merger proposal at Canonizer.com titled: " BTS Dilution / Merger Survey":
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160
I've started by splitting the general, "should BtsX ever be diluted" at the most important level, as that seems to be the most important and fundamental issue of disagreement. We plan to create a sub camp of the "Rarely Delute" camp representing the state of the art of the leading consensus camp of exactly what, how, and when... it will be done. Now we need someone to provide a concise description of their view of the state of the art of what is being or what should be proposed so we can start building and tracking how much consensus, we can achieve for this and all competing proposals.
As always, this is just the first draft stab at a consensus building survey topic. Anything can change at any time by anyone. Hopefully people will see a better way of doing things and help make the improvements in a wiki way. Lots of small contributions and people joining camps are what will make this great and amplify everyone's wisdom on what is the best thing to do. If a camp representing what you believe is already there, sign and join it to help it along. If your exact view isn't yet included, please help to get that view started, so others can start building expert consensus around the best ideas.
With all due respect, I'm not sure all forum members would be comfortable signing up for an account on your site first, not fully understanding the Mormon Transhumanist Association. With polls, etc., people like to remain anonymous. If you want wider participation, you might want to give assurances that people are remaining anonymous and aren't joining some list.
OK, we've thrown up a first stab at a start of a consensus building survey topic on this bitshares merger proposal at Canonizer.com titled: " BTS Dilution / Merger Survey":
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160
I've started by splitting the general, "should BtsX ever be diluted" at the most important level, as that seems to be the most important and fundamental issue of disagreement. We plan to create a sub camp of the "Rarely Delute" camp representing the state of the art of the leading consensus camp of exactly what, how, and when... it will be done. Now we need someone to provide a concise description of their view of the state of the art of what is being or what should be proposed so we can start building and tracking how much consensus, we can achieve for this and all competing proposals.
As always, this is just the first draft stab at a consensus building survey topic. Anything can change at any time by anyone. Hopefully people will see a better way of doing things and help make the improvements in a wiki way. Lots of small contributions and people joining camps are what will make this great and amplify everyone's wisdom on what is the best thing to do. If a camp representing what you believe is already there, sign and join it to help it along. If your exact view isn't yet included, please help to get that view started, so others can start building expert consensus around the best ideas.
2 years l can not touch my money,, hey my name s john smith invest your money on me for two years will double it for u. fishyyy
2 years l can not touch my money,, hey my name s john smith invest your money on me for two years will double it for u. fishyyy[ ] you understood the proposal