No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force.
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
80% BTSX
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
80% BTSX
2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
Rationale:
There is no way to possibly estimate the relative value of all systems and each of us has a different estimate on the viability of each project and their respective growth curves. In light of so many variables I wanted to go with a simple solution. Market caps are not available for VOTE or AGS and BTSX/PTS price has been so volatile that the market doesn't have an honest valuation.
So I hope this proposal gets it "close enough" the advantages we get by combining out weigh any estimation errors.
What does each party get out of the deal?
PTS:
1) No more dilution for mining for an instant gain of ~20% over 2 years
2) A stake in all PAST DAC ideas as well as future... this compensates for getting 3% less than the 10% min of all DACs
3) A vastly higher chance of success for a comparatively lower percent of ownership.
AGS
1) Gradual Liquidity
2) Otherwise the same as PTS
VOTE:
1) Support of the main development team and better liquidity
DNS: network effect of more general user base brought in by VOTE
BTSX
1) No competition for BitUSD
2) Combined network effect
3) Marketing support from Adam / VOTE
4) Long term funding and support plan
5) Dilution at a slower rate than Bitcoin
This said we are working with Eddie and Cob to use BTS as the backend of their music service and I am going to recommend any future merger with them be funded via electing Eddie and Cob as delegates to buy out NOTE holders from their fund raiser over time.
We are going to lower asset creation fees for user issued assets.
BTSX will be renamed to BTS
Snapshot for PTS / AGS will be Nov 5th...
Merger to be complete by end of November.
We seem to have over 83% support from forum members with 130 votes cast and huge support from the marketing team, the development team, and just about everyone.
We will be creating a DevShares chain that will have all experimental updates and have regular release schedules with new "hard fork" features once every 3 months and eventually every 6 months. Details on the DevShares are still unclear. DevShares will hard fork frequently and not be suitable for accumulation of capital.. it may have down time, be hacked, etc... but we will maintain it as a testing ground for all features and for 3rd party developers. Unlike Bitcoin Testnet, DevShares are designed to have economic value of their own and the chain will not "reset ownership". It will therefore also support BitUSD.. but far less liquid.
Future dilution will have a hard coded limit of 10% per year and will be allocated to delegates that campaign and get approval for their pay. This 10% limit may be raised via a hard fork with shareholder approval. Our new "social consensus" will be that "majority shareholders rule" and everything else is subject to change.
Nothing is perfect, I am sure we will lose some people as a result of this change. But my goal is that we can have the funding and flexibility to take on the mainstream with our product offerings of BitUSD / etc.
This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument. The market needs certainty and I hope to get it settled ASAP.
Bytemaster, the 2-year vesting period is not good--it's too restrictive and will unnecessarily harm everyone by imposing more risk on people's portfolios. Also, AGS, PTS should get 10% each as they don't have a seat at the negotiating table.
Just so I understand, 500 million new shares created? If someone chooses to access their new shares before the 2 year period, where does the penalty go. Is it burned? Does it go to the delegates?
you can have bitUSD gateways on the vote and dns chains. In the simplest form, just a user with bitshares and vote/DNS account which take bitUSD deposits on the bitshares blockchain, and issue bitUSD IOU's (essentially user issued tokens) on the second blockchain. these IOU's just facilitate exchange on the specific DAC. for instance with the music DAC these IOU's are used to buy artist coin or with DNS domains. the person receiving these IOU's will want to redeem them immediately with the gateway for interest bearing bitUSD.
It's the same concept of bitstamp taking dollar deposits and issuing IOUS on the ripple ledger. this is transferring the dollar from the bank ledger to ripple ledger. A bitshares/peertrack gateway would take deposits in bitshares bitUSD, issue IOUS on peertracks and correspondingly redeem / destroy those IOUS.
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
80% BTSX
So, to recap: there will be 2.5 billion BTS. 3% of these are allocated to DNS, that's 75 million BTS. The initial allocation of DNS granted 10% to toast, that's 7.5 million BTS or about 200.000 USD at current price. IOW toast will receive 200k USD for bringing the DNS chain to the point where it is now, which is little more than an initial clone of the bitshares toolkit?
And you call that a "merger" and "capital infusion"? Oh boy.
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
80% BTSX
So, to recap: there will be 2.5 billion BTS. 3% of these are allocated to DNS, that's 75 million BTS. The initial allocation of DNS granted 10% to toast, that's 7.5 million BTS or about 200.000 USD at current price. IOW toast will receive 200k USD for bringing the DNS chain to the point where it is now, which is little more than an initial clone of the bitshares toolkit?
And you call that a "merger" and "capital infusion"? Oh boy.
The long lockout period seems fair for AGS and even perhaps PTS, but I think the VOTE and DNS crowd were expecting liquidity sooner. Would it be too confusing to put the VOTE and DNS allocations on a shorter liquidity schedule, like perhaps 6 months?
Bytemaster, the 2-year vesting period is not good--it's too restrictive and will unnecessarily harm everyone by imposing more risk on people's portfolios. Also, AGS, PTS should get 10% each as they don't have a seat at the negotiating table.
The long lockout period seems fair for AGS and even perhaps PTS, but I think the VOTE and DNS crowd were expecting liquidity sooner. Would it be too confusing to put the VOTE and DNS allocations on a shorter liquidity schedule, like perhaps 6 months?
I agree, DNS should have a shorter period.... perhaps 6 months.
A tip to anyone with PTS or DNS on exchanges (bt38 or bter): Based on this proposed allocation, and prices right now (BTSX 6100 sat, PTS 6600 sat, DNS 200 sat), you should sell your PTS and DNS, and buy BTSX.
I did this already. You'll get slightly more shares in the new BTS if you do this fast before prices adjust.
Obviously, if DNS and PTS fall and BTSX rises, youll need to do some math to see if this is still the case.
Keep in mind that the "so-called" market cap on DNS and PTS is a very thin market and you are being moved to a much deeper market. Someone looking to sell 1% of PTS would push down the price much further and thus get much less than the market cap suggests... moving them into BTSX and selling the same amount would move the price less.
It is complicated, and I don't think that anything is going to be fair to everyone.
I think that PTS and DNS should have no lockout period. Right now, you can already sell them on the exchange. It is unfair to lock out holders of these shares, who were already liquid at the time of the announcement. Like, you can literally go dump them RIGHT NOW, and then not face a lockout. (Note: I already dumped mine and bought BTSX with it, so this doesnt effect me. But it effects others and I want to push for fairness).
I think the lockout period for AGS and VOTE shares should be 6 months. 2 years is an eternity.
The above allocation grants this many BTS to each of the stakeholder DACs:
99 BTS per PTS
87.5 BTS per AGS
0.015 BTS per DNS (i.e.: sell now before your stake is worthless)
Questions: Vesting period is for who? PTS/AGS/DNS/VOTE? Or just PTS/AGS? Or... other?
Shentist also mentioned this - why the incredibly low valuation for DNS? Anybody who's smart should go sell all their DNS right now because if this proposal goes through, the price of DNS will crash by almost two-thirds, or much more than that if DNS is included in the vesting thing.
Edit: People can argue about the length of the vesting period; but like Ander said, 2 years is forever in crypto. A 2-year period will utterly crush the price of PTS because people can trade them for BTSX and get liquidity, and currently BTSX and PTS give equal amounts of BTS for the value. I'd expect a 50% drop in PTS price would be mild.
I think that PTS and DNS should have no lockout period. Right now, you can already sell them on the exchange. It is unfair to lock out holders of these shares, who were already liquid at the time of the announcement. Like, you can literally go dump them RIGHT NOW, and then not face a lockout. (Note: I already dumped mine and bought BTSX with it, so this doesnt effect me. But it effects others and I want to push for fairness).
I think the lockout period for AGS and VOTE shares should be 6 months. 2 years is an eternity.
A tip to anyone with PTS or DNS on exchanges (bt38 or bter): Based on this proposed allocation, and prices right now (BTSX 6100 sat, PTS 6600 sat, DNS 200 sat), you should sell your PTS and DNS, and buy BTSX.
I did this already. You'll get slightly more shares in the new BTS if you do this fast before prices adjust.
Obviously, if DNS and PTS fall and BTSX rises, youll need to do some math to see if this is still the case.
Keep in mind that the "so-called" market cap on DNS and PTS is a very thin market and you are being moved to a much deeper market. Someone looking to sell 1% of PTS would push down the price much further and thus get much less than the market cap suggests... moving them into BTSX and selling the same amount would move the price less.
It is complicated, and I don't think that anything is going to be fair to everyone.
Someone sold 16 BTC worth of DNS on Bter and crashed the price 50%...
Well, if irational panic selling continue to drop the price, I'll be happy to buy and get a discount on BTS (taking into account I don't mind the vesting period)
Mumble anyone? We are actively chatting about these things...right now.
Well, if irational panic selling continue to drop the price, I'll be happy to buy and get a discount on BTS (taking into account I don't mind the vesting period)
Why should a transaction for a FOREX trader be effected by someone who wants to buy the latest SnoopDogg single[/li][/list]
The above allocation grants this many BTS to each of the stakeholder DACs:
99 BTS per PTS
87.5 BTS per AGS
0.015 BTS per DNS (i.e.: sell now before your stake is worthless)
7%*2.5Bil/1.648Mil is ~ 106 per PTSQuestions: Vesting period is for who? PTS/AGS/DNS/VOTE? Or just PTS/AGS? Or... other?
Shentist also mentioned this - why the incredibly low valuation for DNS? Anybody who's smart should go sell all their DNS right now because if this proposal goes through, the price of DNS will crash by almost two-thirds, or much more than that if DNS is included in the vesting thing.
Edit: People can argue about the length of the vesting period; but like Ander said, 2 years is forever in crypto. A 2-year period will utterly crush the price of PTS because people can trade them for BTSX and get liquidity, and currently BTSX and PTS give equal amounts of BTS for the value. I'd expect a 50% drop in PTS price would be mild.
0.00006*106 ~ 0.00636
so no 50% drop expected for PTS ,IMHO.
Well, if irational panic selling continue to drop the price, I'll be happy to buy and get a discount on BTS (taking into account I don't mind the vesting period)
If I understand correctly, even after 50% drop, you will still get more BTS by selling DNS for BTSX.
I still am not convinced why we have the merge DAC's into one. this seems not preferable.
... as it stands I don't accept merging DAC's..
Well, if irational panic selling continue to drop the price, I'll be happy to buy and get a discount on BTS (taking into account I don't mind the vesting period)
If I understand correctly, even after 50% drop, you will still get more BTS by selling DNS for BTSX.
I calculate that DNS needs to be about 75 satoshis. (Unless BTSX goes up).
I calculate that DNS needs to be about 75 satoshis. (Unless BTSX goes up).
I calculate that DNS needs to be about 75 satoshis. (Unless BTSX goes up).
You are correct. I did it wrong, multiplying by .03 for DNS and .07 for PTS. But I needed to multiply by .03/.80 and .07/.80, because BTSX is getting 80%.
New numbers:
DNS should be 95 satoshis (at BTSX 6300 sat).
PTS should be 6600 satoshis (at BTSX 6300 sat).
PTS is already there, and has been for the past day.
DNS drops a bit more.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.
Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.
Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.
While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.
Sorry Stan but this doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.
Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.
Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.
While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.
No, the answer is much simpler than that: He simply didn't want BTSX to die:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10279.msg134808#msg134808 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10279.msg134808#msg134808)
I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.
Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.
Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.
While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.
Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.
Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.
While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.
I think it's much simpler than that: it's not possible to focus on building multiple companies all at once. Focusing on launching one successful company is hard enough as it is; even Elon Musk couldn't focus on 5 companies (that compete with each other!) at the same time.
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
80% BTSX
So, to recap: there will be 2.5 billion BTS. 3% of these are allocated to DNS, that's 75 million BTS. The initial allocation of DNS granted 10% to toast, that's 7.5 million BTS or about 200.000 USD at current price. IOW toast will receive 200k USD for bringing the DNS chain to the point where it is now, which is little more than an initial clone of the bitshares toolkit?
And you call that a "merger" and "capital infusion"? Oh boy.
Toast will not be including his developer grant.
2 years vesting period is too long. Rather than reducing stakes for early withdrawal, just make 25% available at 6 month mark, 50% at 1 year mark, 100% available at 2 year mark etc... gradual vesting
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
It was at the right place at the right time.
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.
Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution? Does that seem plausible? A custom blockchain - yes. The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ? ... ?
Yea it keeps track of your votes ! And does your Name Service ! The ultimate vote solution ! OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities ! Come one ! Come all !
<facepalm>
Am I being too cynical ?
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.
Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution? Does that seem plausible? A custom blockchain - yes. The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ? ... ?
Yea it keeps track of your votes ! And does your Name Service ! The ultimate vote solution ! OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities ! Come one ! Come all !
<facepalm>
Am I being too cynical ?
Obviously, the VOTE DAC has more implications than some of us have considered. I know I hadn't given it much credit. Seems like a neat project, but I'm unclear on where the value comes from and how the heck they are going to get any government or corporation to use it. But it seems there's more to VOTE than meets the eye. I'm guessing it moves us more into Ethereum territory.Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.
Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution? Does that seem plausible? A custom blockchain - yes. The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ? ... ?
Yea it keeps track of your votes ! And does your Name Service ! The ultimate vote solution !
<facepalm>
Am I being too cynical ?
Here are the threads where the new VOTE changes were discussed:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10057.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10118.0
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.
Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution? Does that seem plausible? A custom blockchain - yes. The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ? ... ?
Yea it keeps track of your votes ! And does your Name Service ! The ultimate vote solution ! OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities ! Come one ! Come all !
<facepalm>
Am I being too cynical ?
It seems for this reason that the various aspects of the "super DAC" should be branched off into their own wallets or something -- there needs to be a separation between all these different ideas, while still being ultimately backed up by the BTS super token so that investors are happy and developer focus isn't pulled to competing ventures.
I'm not very happy about PTS not being liquid. The vesting period needs to be a lot shorter. PTS is getting screwed. 0
I'm not even sure marketing one big DAC is that great of an idea. Metcalfe's or not. We're a currency, but also DNS provider, but we do voting too ! Is this easier to market ? How about using it? I guess one blockchain with separate front ends ? No one had to even mention PTS/AGS previously in marketing. Now we have a million different things under 1 roof.
I suppose it might be better because I don't particularly disagree with Metcalfe's/network effect but you guys better think real carefully before blindly following a law. There is a real problem with technical people applying stuff like this and having utter faith in it but failing to see the limitations of men in some regard.
So are there going to be separate front ends ?
So how many steps have we taken backwards from a point of stability ?
Adam Ernest now gets 1% of BTS because he did what ?
This is sort of what I was worried about when I first read Dan's initial posting.
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?
I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.
Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.
Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution? Does that seem plausible? A custom blockchain - yes. The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ? ... ?
Yea it keeps track of your votes ! And does your Name Service ! The ultimate vote solution ! OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities ! Come one ! Come all !
<facepalm>
Am I being too cynical ?
It seems for this reason that the various aspects of the "super DAC" should be branched off into their own wallets or something -- there needs to be a separation between all these different ideas, while still being ultimately backed up by the BTS super token so that investors are happy and developer focus isn't pulled to competing ventures.
Separate Wallets would work, no? Think about what cob and eddy were talking about with peertracks- an interface that sits "on top of" the blockchain. Room for as many other interfaces/wallets/clients as needed. The Bitcoin crowd has had this idea for a long time- use BTC as the ledger and ride everything else on "top". Same idea with Bitshares, but with BTS it could actually work, thanks to DPOS, faster transaction times, touring completeness, etc.
I'm 100% against this proposal. EDIT: I support the merge but not with these numbersI fully agree with this. Agree with the merger but the allocation is so low for PTS/AGS after Feb28! Those were the ppl that donated most of the AGS dev fund...
What AGS/PTS get is ridiculously low.
It is against the initial promise.
I'm 100% against this proposal. EDIT: I support the merge but not with these numbersI fully agree with this. Agree with the merger but the allocation is so low for PTS/AGS after Feb28! Those were the ppl that donated most of the AGS dev fund...
What AGS/PTS get is ridiculously low.
It is against the initial promise.
disclaimer: I donated more to AGS after Feb28 than before.
One sentence on how VOTE will eclipse and Kill BTSX. Just one sentence, no secrets, no slippery slope, no pie in the sky. One sentence with a fact or even a plausible theory.
Are you blindly following?
Here's a news flash, VOTE WILL NEVER ECLIPSE BTSX? VOTE has zero monetary potential. If Bytemaster wants to leave BTSX and devote all time to VOTE, so be it. Remember he and the I3 others have the largest stake to lose. Has I3 ever canvassed for a new Dev to help out? I certainly never saw a call. I am afraid something is going on behind science we are not privy to.
+5% the incredibly low percentage along with the incredibly long vesting period soaks PTS/AGS holders far too much.I'm 100% against this proposal. EDIT: I support the merge but not with these numbersI fully agree with this. Agree with the merger but the allocation is so low for PTS/AGS after Feb28! Those were the ppl that donated most of the AGS dev fund...
What AGS/PTS get is ridiculously low.
It is against the initial promise.
disclaimer: I donated more to AGS after Feb28 than before.
Adam earnest gets 1%? For real?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
+5% Support.....how do I officially vote in support of BM's proposal?
2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
please clarify this. I ASSUME this doesn't apply to current BTSX holders. You wouldn't lock their FREE (as in freedom) shares would you? That's not acceptable. Couple have asked so BM please clarify it's only for those that are being merged (PTS/AGS ?).Quote2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
Is the vesting period for btsx, dns, Vote, AGS and PTS?
I thought it was only for AGS and PTS.
If so, there would be an serious incentive to keep BTSX on centralized exchanges.
Because I guess they would simply drop the x, and continue trading.
And so the vesting period would be avoided.
I calculate that DNS needs to be about 75 satoshis. (Unless BTSX goes up).
You are correct. I did it wrong, multiplying by .03 for DNS and .07 for PTS. But I needed to multiply by .03/.80 and .07/.80, because BTSX is getting 80%.
New numbers:
DNS should be 95 satoshis (at BTSX 6300 sat).
PTS should be 6600 satoshis (at BTSX 6300 sat).
PTS is already there, and has been for the past day.
DNS drops a bit more.
And none of those numbers account for liquidity premium, which for a 2 year vesting period should be significant. If the current plan is finalized, we could easily see both PTS and DNS drop by another 25% to 50%. IMO.
Quote2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
Is the vesting period for btsx, dns, Vote, AGS and PTS?
Once sentence on why VOTE would eclipse BTSX...
VOTE was shaping up to have all of the features of BTSX + DNS + Bazzar + VOTE's market strategy + all of the developers. Why was it going to get all of the developers, because Adam had a 30% stake with which to hire us all and Agent 86 was making a compelling case of the need for dilution and developers with a major stake.
Why... because BTSX was DAC Sun's chain, had a development budget that was capped, and had no ability to raise capital.
Because people were starting to freak out that VOTE with that feature set and team would be a threat to BTSX and starting to dump BTSX on the mere rumor.
The more I think about capital infusion the more I like it.. in hindsight.
The finance masters all say the perfect currency is one which ties supply to growth(GDP)... and this would be the closest thing to that. It wouldn't keep growing supply needlessly but based on demand based on a consensus for a new technology.
VOTE was shaping up to have all of the features of BTSX + DNS + Bazzar + VOTE's market strategy + all of the developers. Why was it going to get all of the developers, because Adam had a 30% stake with which to hire us all and Agent 86 was making a compelling case of the need for dilution and developers with a major stake.+5%
Once sentence on why VOTE would eclipse BTSX...
VOTE was shaping up to have all of the features of BTSX + DNS + Bazzar + VOTE's market strategy + all of the developers. Why was it going to get all of the developers, because Adam had a 30% stake with which to hire us all and Agent 86 was making a compelling case of the need for dilution and developers with a major stake.
Why... because BTSX was DAC Sun's chain, had a development budget that was capped, and had no ability to raise capital.
Because people were starting to freak out that VOTE with that feature set and team would be a threat to BTSX and starting to dump BTSX on the mere rumor.
What happened to all the money raised through AGS? Are you paying yourselves through AGS and then DACsun is paying you too? Serious question, no implications.
I was under the impression AGS was for the toolkit and BTSX (the flagship DAC). Did you run out of money?
*side note
What happens to my bitUSD in BTSX? Are you going to force me to sell when the merger happens or will my bitUSD transfer over?
One sentence on how VOTE will eclipse and Kill BTSX. Just one sentence, no secrets, no slippery slope, no pie in the sky. One sentence with a fact or even a plausible theory.
Are you blindly following?
Here's a news flash, VOTE WILL NEVER ECLIPSE BTSX? VOTE has zero monetary potential. If Bytemaster wants to leave BTSX and devote all time to VOTE, so be it. Remember he and the I3 others have the largest stake to lose. Has I3 ever canvassed for a new Dev to help out? I certainly never saw a call. I am afraid something is going on behind science we are not privy to.
NewMine, we can always count on you for a good dose of bluster.
Nobody here knows what VOTE is all about. Nobody has anything other than vague hypotheses.
This is what happened, as far as I can guess: BM got really excited about VOTE the other day, and wouldn't tell us why. Then, behind the scenes, he started working on it, and his friends said "hey! stop it! BTSX isn't done yet!" And BM replied and said "But BTSX is boring! How about we figure out a way to roll the VOTE features into BTSX so that I don't have to split my time between what's boring and what's exciting?"
I bet dollars to donuts that's essentially what happened. Stan was exaggerating when he said VOTE would kill BTSX, but the idea was sound: if BM is going to work on both, everything would work better if he could work on them simultaneously.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what happened behind the scenes. I made all that up, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
No, the answer is much simpler than that: He simply didn't want BTSX to die:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10279.msg134808#msg134808
Do AGS holders have to claim BTSX and DNS before the merger? There is still no safe way to do this without exposing private keys.
Do AGS holders have to claim BTSX and DNS before the merger? There is still no safe way to do this without exposing private keys.
No need to claim on other chains.
7%*2.5Bil/1.648Mil is ~ 106 per PTS
Do AGS holders have to claim BTSX and DNS before the merger? There is still no safe way to do this without exposing private keys.
No need to claim on other chains.
Can my bitUSD be carried over to the new DAC?From what BM told us in the recent talk ... the current chain will be upgraded .. so there will be more hard forks .. to get in the other stakes .. but the current system will continue running .. AFAIK
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.
But only $10K in liquidity. We could have easily sold enough vote to push its price down to a value far lower than it is at today... and we would have done that had we chosen to simply compete rather than buy them out. Buying out DNS was a gesture of good will that was mainly done because it was 90%+ AGS/PTS snapshot once we remove the developer funds from it.
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.
But only $10K in liquidity. We could have easily sold enough vote to push its price down to a value far lower than it is at today... and we would have done that had we chosen to simply compete rather than buy them out. Buying out DNS was a gesture of good will that was mainly done because it was 90%+ AGS/PTS snapshot once we remove the developer funds from it.
BM, how close are we to this particular allocation being set in stone? My investment strategy is hanging in the balance.
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.
But only $10K in liquidity. We could have easily sold enough vote to push its price down to a value far lower than it is at today... and we would have done that had we chosen to simply compete rather than buy them out. Buying out DNS was a gesture of good will that was mainly done because it was 90%+ AGS/PTS snapshot once we remove the developer funds from it.
BM, how close are we to this particular allocation being set in stone? My investment strategy is hanging in the balance.
I don't expect to change it, it is already priced in.
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.
But only $10K in liquidity.
Quote2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
Is the vesting period for btsx, dns, Vote, AGS and PTS?
No vesting period on BTSX.
He just did on the mumble talk ..No vesting period on BTSX.
Did BM confirm this?
He just did on the mumble talk ..No vesting period on BTSX.
Did BM confirm this?
BTSX will STILL BE TRADABLE!!!
I just report summarized version of BM's post on Korean community (outside of this forum). I will bring their feedback when it's available.
Personally, I strongly support the consolidation, but 2 year vesting period appears to be little bit harsh (How about a year?)
I just report summarized version of BM's post on Korean community (outside of this forum). I will bring their feedback when it's available.
Personally, I strongly support the consolidation, but 2 year vesting period appears to be little bit harsh (How about a year?)
You can get liquid in 1 year for half the shares...
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.
But only $10K in liquidity.
where do you take the $10K figure from? there was at least 50M volume in the drop alone on btc38 (CNY and BTC)
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.
But only $10K in liquidity. We could have easily sold enough vote to push its price down to a value far lower than it is at today... and we would have done that had we chosen to simply compete rather than buy them out. Buying out DNS was a gesture of good will that was mainly done because it was 90%+ AGS/PTS snapshot once we remove the developer funds from it.
BM, how close are we to this particular allocation being set in stone? My investment strategy is hanging in the balance.
I don't expect to change it, it is already priced in.
maybe it's better to move "80% BTSX" below the sentence containing "2 year" because it's still confusing even says remain liquid....
Personally, I strongly support the consolidation, but 2 year vesting period appears to be little bit harsh (How about a year?)You can get liquid in 1 year for half the shares...
Personally, I strongly support the consolidation, but 2 year vesting period appears to be little bit harsh (How about a year?)You can get liquid in 1 year for half the shares...
Yes, this is an issue of proportion, IMO. Unless there's special reasons, everyone prefer 1-year maximum period to 2-year one. Could you provide more reasons that justify 2-year vesting period?
i wil say it again - this is not a merger.
all the DNS buyers on BTER got screwed big time. only BTSX are cared, but we only do it because bytemaster was on the move to VOTE. sorry i don't buy it. i just lost a big junk of my invested money without need. i invested in AGS because i liked the competing DACs. My bad, that most of my money was invested after the BTSX snapshot. So my portion in BTSX was small. I bought a couple of BTSX on BTER.
So i was just happy to see my taken risk gotten be rewarded with the coming DACs DNS and Vote , Music as well. Play will come and now we "vote" to merge. But my stakes has no votes. i am delitued the most.
- my after the BTSX AGS snapshot got not much
- my DNS are valued nothing
- my VOTE are valued nothing
question is why we are doing this? just to simplify anything? sorry i don't buy it. the whole merger is in big favor of all the supporters before the BTSX snapshot.
why not just throw BTSX away take a fair AGS Snapshot and allocte PTS in some way?
i can tell, because it will upset the big fish who are invested before the BTSX snapshot and will get in the new BTS chain less then now.
don't call it a merger - it is not!
every promise was broken.
i am in favor of the idea, but how the AGS/PTS + DNS + VOTES are treated is shameful.
on this emerging mumble session bytemaster said "no, only AGS and PTS will be merged with BTSX" just a couple hours BTSX is thucking everything in.
sry, that i am upset, but if you "merge" someone has to lose and that's me.
Will Music be joined to the super DAC, or are you still considering? There is external capital influx in Music, so I think that merging Music into super DAC would be more difficult than other DACs.
Will Music be joined to the super DAC, or are you still considering? There is external capital influx in Music, so I think that merging Music into super DAC would be more difficult than other DACs.
That will be their call and voters decision to elect them as delegates... I won't make that call.
I just report summarized version of BM's post on Korean community (outside of this forum). I will bring their feedback when it's available.
Personally, I strongly support the consolidation, but 2 year vesting period appears to be little bit harsh (How about a year?)
You can get liquid in 1 year for half the shares...
We are not locking down BTSX shares.I just report summarized version of BM's post on Korean community (outside of this forum). I will bring their feedback when it's available.
Personally, I strongly support the consolidation, but 2 year vesting period appears to be little bit harsh (How about a year?)
You can get liquid in 1 year for half the shares...
Liquidity isn't where it should be now. So how is locking shares down going to help the internal market? Most people who will have locked shares are ones who participate in the market the most. I hope you reconsider the vesting period and take it off the table. I would hate to see a lagging market only to be hard forked to wipe away the vesting period.
@BM : Merge or change is ok for me. Your proposed allocation is not my favor though but I will follow the majority. But this topic is a "price sensitive news", SO PLEASE NOTIFY any price sensitive news at least 24 hours ahead (a brief summary with no negative/positive effect). Everyone needs to have a fair start. I do not want to wake up and see DNS price dump to nothing...... which I think will be at least about Namecoin market cap in month ....
@BM : Merge or change is ok for me. Your proposed allocation is not my favor though but I will follow the majority. But this topic is a "price sensitive news", SO PLEASE NOTIFY any price sensitive news at least 24 hours ahead (a brief summary with no negative/positive effect). Everyone needs to have a fair start. I do not want to wake up and see DNS price dump to nothing...... which I think will be at least about Namecoin market cap in month ....
+5% to this guy. I was lucky enough to catch this news in time to save my DNS stake from dying, but obviously most people weren't so fortunate.
BM, you carry enough clout around here to have changed the market value of DNS by about 50% today, by fiat. Please carefully consider the effects of your announcements and try to make the smallest number of people mad.
@BM : Merge or change is ok for me. Your proposed allocation is not my favor though but I will follow the majority. But this topic is a "price sensitive news", SO PLEASE NOTIFY any price sensitive news at least 24 hours ahead (a brief summary with no negative/positive effect). Everyone needs to have a fair start. I do not want to wake up and see DNS price dump to nothing...... which I think will be at least about Namecoin market cap in month ....
+5% to this guy. I was lucky enough to catch this news in time to save my DNS stake from dying, but obviously most people weren't so fortunate.
BM, you carry enough clout around here to have changed the market value of DNS by about 50% today, by fiat. Please carefully consider the effects of your announcements and try to make the smallest number of people mad.
What's he going to do, freeze the markets for 24 hours until everyone can attack them at once? This forum is public, open to all, with more than 7000 members. And markets are open 24 hours a day; he can't exactly police which of those 7000 go off and trade on the news. Not sure what he could do differently based on your suggestions.
Guys,+5%
There is lot of games (i.e. Game Theory) going on here. Arguments are not the only card in this game. It is impossible to resolve it by democratic means.
On the other hand B.M has its Vision having hard time to draw picture for all. Although I disapprove with pragmatic nature of his deciding this is probably territory from where his genius come from.
Bottom line is: Do we trust this guy or not?
I say Yes and going to act accordingly.
Good Luck
Actually the allocation is ok if you remove *all* non-ags/pts-based stake from dns and vote. Excluding packpay done from dns dev fund which I'm setting aside now.Without clarity on this the DNS percentage isn't very informative due to the huge blocks of DNS that might come out.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Actually the allocation is ok if you remove *all* non-ags/pts-based stake from dns and vote. Excluding packpay done from dns dev fund which I'm setting aside now.Without clarity on this the DNS percentage isn't very informative due to the huge blocks of DNS that might come out.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Oh really? The timing between the VOTE thread upheaval and the merger proposal shortly after was a total coincidence? A few short weeks ago BTSX was supposedly ready to take the world by storm. BM even stated that the "secret sauce" and other conditions relevant to the successful prospects of BTSX remain unchanged, but now all of a sudden we find out that in fact BTSX has been hanging on the brink of oblivion and this merger is the greatest thing ever to come save our DACs from imminent collapse? Please tell me you aren't this naive.I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.
Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.
Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.
While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.
I think it's much simpler than that: it's not possible to focus on building multiple companies all at once. Focusing on launching one successful company is hard enough as it is; even Elon Musk couldn't focus on 5 companies (that compete with each other!) at the same time.
...BTSX isn't dead, it can and will grow naturally like Bitcoin. It raised enough funds to get built, deployed and maintained..... the original plan was assuming faster more viral growth due to the massive advantages over the 3 players ahead of us (BTC, LTC, and Ripple)....Just 2 days ago BM is saying that BTSX will be fine (with no merger) and that his concern is the perceived threat from BTSX holders.
The original plan was to fund many DACs that would compete against each other... there were expected to be many BTSX clones each trading different assets and all having at least one BitAsset in common (likely BitUSD or BitGLD).
The original plan was for me to work and help bootstrap / design these other DACs to have a robust ecosystem.
The only thing I see now is that the later DACs have learned from BTSX and thus people are starting to see that they might be a threat...
I am first and foremost loyal to those who have given so much and placed so much faith in me, especially during our darkest hour in the months from March until July. ..
And is the idea of this to be a continuous linear vesting, so after 2 days I get (1/365) of the shares?
Oh really? The timing between the VOTE thread upheaval and the merger proposal shortly after was a total coincidence? A few short weeks ago BTSX was supposedly ready to take the world by storm. BM even stated that the "secret sauce" and other conditions relevant to the successful prospects of BTSX remain unchanged, but now all of a sudden we find out that in fact BTSX has been hanging on the brink of oblivion and this merger is the greatest thing ever to come save our DACs from imminent collapse? Please tell me you aren't this naive.I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.
Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.
Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.
While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.
I think it's much simpler than that: it's not possible to focus on building multiple companies all at once. Focusing on launching one successful company is hard enough as it is; even Elon Musk couldn't focus on 5 companies (that compete with each other!) at the same time.
It's been all sunshine and butterflies for months with no whisper of merging DACs but all of sudden it's some dire situation that has to be done NOW before anyone has time to think about it much. Either I3 have been candy coating the situation all along OR pretending the merger is the savior of everything Bitshares is a spin tactic to make the transition more palatable and get the transition done faster with less dissenters. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
BM wasn't even running all the DACs anyway, he stated many times toast was in charge of DNS with others planned to champion the other DAC ideas.Quote from: bytemaster...BTSX isn't dead, it can and will grow naturally like Bitcoin. It raised enough funds to get built, deployed and maintained..... the original plan was assuming faster more viral growth due to the massive advantages over the 3 players ahead of us (BTC, LTC, and Ripple)....Just 2 days ago BM is saying that BTSX will be fine (with no merger) and that his concern is the perceived threat from BTSX holders.
The original plan was to fund many DACs that would compete against each other... there were expected to be many BTSX clones each trading different assets and all having at least one BitAsset in common (likely BitUSD or BitGLD).
The original plan was for me to work and help bootstrap / design these other DACs to have a robust ecosystem.
The only thing I see now is that the later DACs have learned from BTSX and thus people are starting to see that they might be a threat...
I am first and foremost loyal to those who have given so much and placed so much faith in me, especially during our darkest hour in the months from March until July. ..
I'm honestly not even trying to fight the merger proposal anymore, it's obviously a lock and going to happen. Further I'm willing to concede it might even be the correct course of action in the long run. I just don't like to see people revise history for their own purposes, especially so those that are responsible for the investment product itself.
It's obvious investors shouldn't invest based on the stated goals of the technology and need instead to invest based on the team behind the technology (which isn't necessarily a bad thing as I do believe there is a lot of talent pooled in the 3I team). Considering this I think it's especially important that their message is clear and doesn't appear to be conflicting or improper.
Community members towing the same phony line isn't doing anyone favors either in my opinion.
Why on earth would you announce a specific allocation yet. You just cratered pts and dns, while I've been telling people that they can hold their dns because it won't matter.
This is not the allocation I agreed to, I'd you recall...
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Stan, Bytemaster, somoene, can we get a clarification on the DNS allocation:
Bytemaster just stated that the 80% dev state was to be removed first.
Does this mean that actually there are only about 1 billion DNS shares which are going to be given the 3% stake in BTS, meaning that they should NOT have tanked 50% today?
Or is the share count 5 billion, which means they should be around half what they currently are?
I thought it was a priority to avoid a situation where an announcement gave someone an information advantage (meaning we were thinking only in terms of current % of market cap).
It doesn't matter anymore because the market has adjusted the price of all assets for this allocation. So any change after the OP would just be BM deciding which current asset holder (AGS, PTS, DNS, BTSX) gets more BTS... meaning this basically has to be the real allocation.
I thought it was a priority to avoid a situation where an announcement gave someone an information advantage (meaning we were thinking only in terms of current % of market cap).
It doesn't matter anymore because the market has adjusted the price of all assets for this allocation. So any change after the OP would just be BM deciding which current asset holder (AGS, PTS, DNS, BTSX) gets more BTS... meaning this basically has to be the real allocation.
I thought it was a priority to avoid a situation where an announcement gave someone an information advantage (meaning we were thinking only in terms of current % of market cap).
It doesn't matter anymore because the market has adjusted the price of all assets for this allocation. So any change after the OP would just be BM deciding which current asset holder (AGS, PTS, DNS, BTSX) gets more BTS... meaning this basically has to be the real allocation.
Except that DNS is still up in the air.
If we interpret it one way, based on 5 billion shares of DNS in existence, then DNS should drop by 50% from current levels (which are alreayd way down).
If we interpret it another way (only the shares of DNS given by PTS/AGS count), then DNS should be much higher than it is now?
We still need clarity on this.
I thought it was a priority to avoid a situation where an announcement gave someone an information advantage (meaning we were thinking only in terms of current % of market cap).
It doesn't matter anymore because the market has adjusted the price of all assets for this allocation. So any change after the OP would just be BM deciding which current asset holder (AGS, PTS, DNS, BTSX) gets more BTS... meaning this basically has to be the real allocation.
BM is a genius programmer and visionary.... But maybe not the greatest when it comes to when and what to post publicly on the forum :P
These kind of situations will be avoided in the future when we have matured as a community, and as a DAC.
I thought it was a priority to avoid a situation where an announcement gave someone an information advantage (meaning we were thinking only in terms of current % of market cap).
It doesn't matter anymore because the market has adjusted the price of all assets for this allocation. So any change after the OP would just be BM deciding which current asset holder (AGS, PTS, DNS, BTSX) gets more BTS... meaning this basically has to be the real allocation.
BM is a genius programmer and visionary.... But maybe not the greatest when it comes to when and what to post publicly on the forum :P
These kind of situations will be avoided in the future when we have matured as a community, and as a DAC.
Yes. Unfortunately. But that will mean you have to wait longer to get information to effect your investment decisions until the story has been polished and vetted. This will increase the knowledge gap between insiders and outsiders. Right now that knowledge gap is measured in minutes...
This has made me confused about ownership rights in the DAC ecosystem. Why don't owners of DACs like VOTE and DNS get to vote on the merger proposal? Is it because the majority shareholders in the DACs have agreed to the proposal? I don't ask this because I'm against the proposal at all, I was just of the view previously that DACs had decentralised control.
Still unsure if it's 3% of 500M bts or 2.5B bts.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
So, hodl DNS or get out while you can?
I'm so confused with this merger talk. If I hodl BTSX, does that mean I am basically benefiting from DNS (assuming this merger?) or do I have to continue holding DNS?
I'm just going to sit in BTSX now, and not mess with it. BTSX is safe. :)
Still unsure if it's 3% of 500M bts or 2.5B bts.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
3% of 2.5B bts.
(The other way, DNS would need to drop by more than 80% more which is clearly wrong).
It may be. You guys can roll with the punches, I'll give you that.Oh really? The timing between the VOTE thread upheaval and the merger proposal shortly after was a total coincidence? A few short weeks ago BTSX was supposedly ready to take the world by storm. BM even stated that the "secret sauce" and other conditions relevant to the successful prospects of BTSX remain unchanged, but now all of a sudden we find out that in fact BTSX has been hanging on the brink of oblivion and this merger is the greatest thing ever to come save our DACs from imminent collapse? Please tell me you aren't this naive.I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.
Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.
Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.
While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.
I think it's much simpler than that: it's not possible to focus on building multiple companies all at once. Focusing on launching one successful company is hard enough as it is; even Elon Musk couldn't focus on 5 companies (that compete with each other!) at the same time.
It's been all sunshine and butterflies for months with no whisper of merging DACs but all of sudden it's some dire situation that has to be done NOW before anyone has time to think about it much. Either I3 have been candy coating the situation all along OR pretending the merger is the savior of everything Bitshares is a spin tactic to make the transition more palatable and get the transition done faster with less dissenters. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
BM wasn't even running all the DACs anyway, he stated many times toast was in charge of DNS with others planned to champion the other DAC ideas.Quote from: bytemaster...BTSX isn't dead, it can and will grow naturally like Bitcoin. It raised enough funds to get built, deployed and maintained..... the original plan was assuming faster more viral growth due to the massive advantages over the 3 players ahead of us (BTC, LTC, and Ripple)....Just 2 days ago BM is saying that BTSX will be fine (with no merger) and that his concern is the perceived threat from BTSX holders.
The original plan was to fund many DACs that would compete against each other... there were expected to be many BTSX clones each trading different assets and all having at least one BitAsset in common (likely BitUSD or BitGLD).
The original plan was for me to work and help bootstrap / design these other DACs to have a robust ecosystem.
The only thing I see now is that the later DACs have learned from BTSX and thus people are starting to see that they might be a threat...
I am first and foremost loyal to those who have given so much and placed so much faith in me, especially during our darkest hour in the months from March until July. ..
I'm honestly not even trying to fight the merger proposal anymore, it's obviously a lock and going to happen. Further I'm willing to concede it might even be the correct course of action in the long run. I just don't like to see people revise history for their own purposes, especially so those that are responsible for the investment product itself.
It's obvious investors shouldn't invest based on the stated goals of the technology and need instead to invest based on the team behind the technology (which isn't necessarily a bad thing as I do believe there is a lot of talent pooled in the 3I team). Considering this I think it's especially important that their message is clear and doesn't appear to be conflicting or improper.
Community members towing the same phony line isn't doing anyone favors either in my opinion.This will be a great post to come back and laugh at someday.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10293.msg135034#msg135034 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10293.msg135034#msg135034)
8)
Yes. You did just watch us evolve all this in dynamic real time.
I still do not understand why vesting apply for DNS and VOTE ?? It should be only for AGS/PTS.
Currently, DNS and VOTE are DAC similar to BTSX (only difference in market cap) so why BTSX can liquid and not DNS and VOTE ??
I still do not understand why vesting apply for DNS and VOTE ?? It should be only for AGS/PTS.
Currently, DNS and VOTE are DAC similar to BTSX (only difference in market cap) so why BTSX can liquid and not DNS and VOTE ??
I think vesting should not apply to PTS or DNS since they were already liquid.
Vesting for VOTE and AGS is fine because they were not already liquid.
Repeating this in threads where the same question keeps coming up:
Bytemaster explained his analysis in today's recorded mumble session. As usual, it went far deeper than superficial numbers like "market value".
Here's a sample: True value assessment must include an estimate of liquidity. It is not possible right now to sell every share at the market price. Not even close. So you can't give a DAC credit for its full market cap unless there is truly that much demand for every share.
Another example: A fully efficient market with all information available to it would be expected to correctly appraise the value of a share. But things are happening too fast and the more you know and have assimilated the implications of all the facts the more accurate will be your assessment of the true value. Bytemaster is the closest thing we have to a fully informed appraiser.
So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.
:)
So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.
:)
So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.
:)
The valuation that DNS was trading at 3 x TMV may be accurate but I'm still not clear on the mechanics of the merger. There are 5bn DNS shares of which 3.6Bn are unclaimed. Does unclaimed mean no vote?
I'm not so much concerned about the efficacy of this merger but of the sovereignty of DACs in general. How big does a DAC need to be before it isn't subject to the consensus of a few developers? While BM, Stan, Toast, et al are good actors that may not always be the case.
Repeating this in threads where the same question keeps coming up:
Bytemaster explained his analysis in today's recorded mumble session. As usual, it went far deeper than superficial numbers like "market value".
Here's a sample: True value assessment must include an estimate of liquidity. It is not possible right now to sell every share at the market price. Not even close. So you can't give a DAC credit for its full market cap unless there is truly that much demand for every share.
Another example: A fully efficient market with all information available to it would be expected to correctly appraise the value of a share. But things are happening too fast and the more you know and have assimilated the implications of all the facts the more accurate will be your assessment of the true value. Bytemaster is the closest thing we have to a fully informed appraiser.
So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.
:)
At the very least, I think DNS an PTS shouldn't be subject to lockout.
(I am 100% BTSX now, none of the others, so it doesnt matter to me, I'm just trying to get everyone a fair deal).
Why on earth would you announce a specific allocation yet. You just cratered pts and dns, while I've been telling people that they can hold their dns because it won't matter.
This is not the allocation I agreed to, I'd you recall...
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Also those vesting rules are terrible, it should just be a simple continuous drip to each balance which keeps vesting if you withdraw partially
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Actually the allocation is ok if you remove *all* non-ags/pts-based stake from dns and vote. Excluding packpay done from dns dev fund which I'm setting aside now.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Also those vesting rules are terrible, it should just be a simple continuous drip to each balance which keeps vesting if you withdraw partially
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
BM, since your this propose released yesterday.
my DNS crashed 40% of market cap
my Pts price is crashing to historical new low.
my BTX is not benefit much.
40% of price crash is NOT normal which means your propose is unfair.
PTS, AGS and DNS become shit coin within last 24 hours. hope you can do something responsable to protect our investment.
This is the only reasonable suggestion in this whole unreasonable thread. The 2 years vesting period makes the proposal of so called "merger" looks like a "swallow" to me ....I still do not understand why vesting apply for DNS and VOTE ?? It should be only for AGS/PTS.
Currently, DNS and VOTE are DAC similar to BTSX (only difference in market cap) so why BTSX can liquid and not DNS and VOTE ??
I think vesting should not apply to PTS or DNS since they were already liquid.
Vesting for VOTE and AGS is fine because they were not already liquid.
BM, since your this propose released yesterday.
my DNS crashed 40% of market cap
my Pts price is crashing to historical new low.
my BTX is not benefit much.
40% of price crash is NOT normal which means your propose is unfair.
PTS, AGS and DNS become shit coin within last 24 hours. hope you can do something responsable to protect our investment.
[/quote
Agree.
BM.
You hurt all of the investor of DNS and PTS, nobody will following your BTS after this plan except someone who hold a lot of BTS
if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.
if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.
Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...
Its not priced in seems to me like a buying opportunity.if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.
Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...
Its not priced in seems to me like a buying opportunity.
In my opinion, the part for PTS and DNS should be frozen, because they are liquid. For AGS, no problem.
if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.
Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...
Have you come up with a proposal of your own yet? Can you link me to it? I'm interested to hear your opinion...not just on PTS/AGS, but a detailed plan.
Stuff gets dirty sometimes in business...so I understand the frustration. I'm simply trying to assess what you are bringing to the table right now.
if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.
Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...
Have you come up with a proposal of your own yet? Can you link me to it? I'm interested to hear your opinion...not just on PTS/AGS, but a detailed plan.
Stuff gets dirty sometimes in business...so I understand the frustration. I'm simply trying to assess what you are bringing to the table right now.
My proposal is quite obvious. Discount the AGS percentage to account for granting them liquidity. The discount proportion should be such that each dollar spent on AGS gets the same equity as each dollar spend on PTS (on average). If AGS was liquid it would trade on-par with PTS dollar-for-dollar since that is literally the only difference between them. This is the objective value of liquidity as determined by the market. I don't actually care what the total percentage is granted to the other assets since that is truly subjective and difficult to quantify. My problem is that the AGS/PTS ratio is provably unfair since it assigns ZERO value to liquidity and, even worse, punishes PTS with a "vesting period"!
************* BM
I am more than fine with the allocation.
I have stated at least 7 times already - I do not believe a perfect allocation is possible... at all.
So, I will suggest a slight change [change that re-distributes only AGS] and keeps everything else untouched!
The logic for this re-adjustment is simple:
-pre Feb 28th AGS donors already received their share of BTSX and post Feb 28th did not.
So, instead of 7% to all AGS, I suggest:
-1% (or 2%) for pre Feb 28th AGS donors;
-6% (or 5%) for post Feb 28th AGS donors;
Should not be so hard to do.
Why on earth would you announce a specific allocation yet. You just cratered pts and dns, while I've been telling people that they can hold their dns because it won't matter.
This is not the allocation I agreed to, I'd you recall...
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
actually I am one of the victims since if I didn't read toast's statements I would for sure sold my dns before they tanked!
Why on earth would you announce a specific allocation yet. You just cratered pts and dns, while I've been telling people that they can hold their dns because it won't matter.
This is not the allocation I agreed to, I'd you recall...
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
actually I am one of the victims since if I didn't read toast's statements I would for sure sold my dns before they tanked!
Well, you are not alone. I bought DNS shares from the market after seeing toast's assurance. I woke up in shock when I saw my DNS investment being decimated. The sudden dive in price is because of a single post and over one night? Wow! This seems unreal to me. Am I in the Matrix? :o
The only consolation I find is that toast has no part in this.
I'm glad I managed to sell 60% of my DNS that I bought on BTER before the flash crash, so at worst I'll only lose a couple hundred dollars.
This whole process leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth though, although I see the need to react once the cat was out of the bag. I'm surprised to see noone mentioning the absurd fact that VOTE gets the same allocation as DNS even though VOTE isn't even live yet while DNS has been trading on Tue exchanges for a while now.
Quite a lot of people will be taking serious losses due to this. If you want to reward Adam Earnest just give him a 1% stake straight out, and give the remaining 2% to DNS. So my counterproposal is 80% BTSX, 7% AGS/PTS, 5% DNS and 1% Adam Earnest.
The vesting period for DNS and PTS is also completely unreasonable. They are already getting shafted, and now they get doubly shafted from an insanely long and punishing vesting period. At least reduce it to 1 year and increase the initial haircut for divesting.
Disclaimer: I'm 95+% invested in BTSX, but this doesn't feel right to me..
Toast already commented on this though, saying it's about 20% that's getting removed, so we're still dealing with 4 billion DNS.I'm glad I managed to sell 60% of my DNS that I bought on BTER before the flash crash, so at worst I'll only lose a couple hundred dollars.
This whole process leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth though, although I see the need to react once the cat was out of the bag. I'm surprised to see noone mentioning the absurd fact that VOTE gets the same allocation as DNS even though VOTE isn't even live yet while DNS has been trading on Tue exchanges for a while now.
Quite a lot of people will be taking serious losses due to this. If you want to reward Adam Earnest just give him a 1% stake straight out, and give the remaining 2% to DNS. So my counterproposal is 80% BTSX, 7% AGS/PTS, 5% DNS and 1% Adam Earnest.
The vesting period for DNS and PTS is also completely unreasonable. They are already getting shafted, and now they get doubly shafted from an insanely long and punishing vesting period. At least reduce it to 1 year and increase the initial haircut for divesting.
Disclaimer: I'm 95+% invested in BTSX, but this doesn't feel right to me..
You may be reacting on incomplete informatiom. Please wait until this is clarified:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10317.msg135396#msg135396
2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
I meant "Should not be frozen", my mistake...In my opinion, the part for PTS and DNS should be frozen, because they are liquid. For AGS, no problem.
pts and dns should be frozen!
2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
Please, for the love of God, realize this is wrong on so many levels.
If someone sells the vested 25% after 6 months, they should still be able to sell the other 75% when they vest.
Just make it gradually vest 1% per week, regardless of what is sold. How hard is that?!?
You just have to check the time stamp v.s. the original balance to see how much balance is currently available.
PTS should be given no lockout period to be fair.
Repeating this in threads where the same question keeps coming up:
Bytemaster explained his analysis in today's recorded mumble session. As usual, it went far deeper than superficial numbers like "market value".
Here's a sample: True value assessment must include an estimate of liquidity. It is not possible right now to sell every share at the market price. Not even close. So you can't give a DAC credit for its full market cap unless there is truly that much demand for every share.
So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.
:)
The same way it is not possible to buy every share at the market price. DNS had a healthy volume relative to it's market cap. You guys are making a big mistake that will result in tons of bad PR. DNS will come in history as a pump & dump coin and this will reflect on a BTS price. Besides, you will not only lose some people, you will gain enemies.
But whatever, i support merger, just strongly do not agree with the allocation.
PS: i will lose like $20 from bad allocation of DNS. I'm just very concerned about future BTS price and other people losses ???
And AGS has 0 liquidity. :D
That is the reason I didn't mention AGS at all.And AGS has 0 liquidity. :D
This has been said over and over, also as an accusation to the effect that AGS is being gifted liquidity.
First of all, AGS holders never wanted quick liquidity. That's why they bought AGS. It was a long term investment to start with. Otherwise they could have bought PTS. I don't think AGS holders are thanking their lucky stars now that they have liquidity. It's more of a liability now. They will have to watch the markets and manage it, be tempted to sell it, etc. AGS holders probably aren't happy with this sudden liquidity.
Another point is that that AGS was always intended to end up effectively liquid. Every time a new DAC came out it was becoming more liquid. Also based on the fact that all along the idea was to build foundation-industry DACs which would then be "snapshoted" in the the future. With time, AGS was alway supposed to be tending toward complete liquidity.
Should PTS/AGS really get 7%?pre feb28 got snapshotted.
PTS/AGS was snapshotted for the initial distribution of BTSX, hence I think they shouldn't get a 1:1 merger.
Repeating this in threads where the same question keeps coming up:
Bytemaster explained his analysis in today's recorded mumble session. As usual, it went far deeper than superficial numbers like "market value".
Here's a sample: True value assessment must include an estimate of liquidity. It is not possible right now to sell every share at the market price. Not even close. So you can't give a DAC credit for its full market cap unless there is truly that much demand for every share.
Another example: A fully efficient market with all information available to it would be expected to correctly appraise the value of a share. But things are happening too fast and the more you know and have assimilated the implications of all the facts the more accurate will be your assessment of the true value. Bytemaster is the closest thing we have to a fully informed appraiser.
So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.
:)
i wil say it again - this is not a merger.
all the DNS buyers on BTER got screwed big time. only BTSX are cared, but we only do it because bytemaster was on the move to VOTE. sorry i don't buy it. i just lost a big junk of my invested money without need. i invested in AGS because i liked the competing DACs. My bad, that most of my money was invested after the BTSX snapshot. So my portion in BTSX was small. I bought a couple of BTSX on BTER.
So i was just happy to see my taken risk gotten be rewarded with the coming DACs DNS and Vote , Music as well. Play will come and now we "vote" to merge. But my stakes has no votes. i am delitued the most.
- my after the BTSX AGS snapshot got not much
- my DNS are valued nothing
- my VOTE are valued nothing
question is why we are doing this? just to simplify anything? sorry i don't buy it. the whole merger is in big favor of all the supporters before the BTSX snapshot.
why not just throw BTSX away take a fair AGS Snapshot and allocte PTS in some way?
i can tell, because it will upset the big fish who are invested before the BTSX snapshot and will get in the new BTS chain less then now.
don't call it a merger - it is not!
every promise was broken.
i am in favor of the idea, but how the AGS/PTS + DNS + VOTES are treated is shameful.
on this emerging mumble session bytemaster said "no, only AGS and PTS will be merged with BTSX" just a couple hours BTSX is thucking everything in.
sry, that i am upset, but if you "merge" someone has to lose and that's me.
I understand how you feel. There are no easy answers, but the best I have for you is this: BTSX could have evolved without giving DNS anything and then competed with DNS. No merger, no buy out, just competition in a free market. Would that have been breaking any promises? Would you have lost more or less money as a result?
this is not a merger !
i am in favor of the merger, but this allocation is rediculus.
DNS 3% - thanks for the suggestion my DNS are now worthless but today the marketcap is 4.1 million, but you tell me it is worth 1.5 million??? holy crap!!!!
AGS is promised 10% of any future DAC I3 will create - this is a new DAC you can not brack your promise aka Social Consensus they need 10%
in my eyes this is not a merger, this is a take over of BTSX holders and the robbery of early funders. i am speachless!
2 years with not able to sell is OK if any merger partner has to do it. So no trading for the next 2 years, because BTSX will not be tradeable in the future for 2 years. Otherwise forget it. I don't see the need why i have to lock up my DNS for 2 years.
i wil say it again - this is not a merger.
all the DNS buyers on BTER got screwed big time. only BTSX are cared, but we only do it because bytemaster was on the move to VOTE. sorry i don't buy it. i just lost a big junk of my invested money without need. i invested in AGS because i liked the competing DACs. My bad, that most of my money was invested after the BTSX snapshot. So my portion in BTSX was small. I bought a couple of BTSX on BTER.
So i was just happy to see my taken risk gotten be rewarded with the coming DACs DNS and Vote , Music as well. Play will come and now we "vote" to merge. But my stakes has no votes. i am delitued the most.
- my after the BTSX AGS snapshot got not much
- my DNS are valued nothing
- my VOTE are valued nothing
question is why we are doing this? just to simplify anything? sorry i don't buy it. the whole merger is in big favor of all the supporters before the BTSX snapshot.
why not just throw BTSX away take a fair AGS Snapshot and allocte PTS in some way?
i can tell, because it will upset the big fish who are invested before the BTSX snapshot and will get in the new BTS chain less then now.
don't call it a merger - it is not!
every promise was broken.
i am in favor of the idea, but how the AGS/PTS + DNS + VOTES are treated is shameful.
on this emerging mumble session bytemaster said "no, only AGS and PTS will be merged with BTSX" just a couple hours BTSX is thucking everything in.
sry, that i am upset, but if you "merge" someone has to lose and that's me.
I understand how you feel. There are no easy answers, but the best I have for you is this: BTSX could have evolved without giving DNS anything and then competed with DNS. No merger, no buy out, just competition in a free market. Would that have been breaking any promises? Would you have lost more or less money as a result?
All the promotion made by 3i made many people believe that bts will focus on the distributed market & monetary stuff, DNS will do keyid/domain stuff and there will be no DNS2.
This plan makes me fill betrayed.
And I also lost a lot of money in DNS, bought quite a lot just few days ago, and was now fucked!
Shit!
So bad proposed!
We(AGSer+PTSer) want not BTSX,not trading liquidity， We want 10% Equity of all the third DAC forever.
The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
AGS/PTS holders effectively got their combined 20% (everyone that has bought and held PTS since before the DNS snapshot).
2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
Please, for the love of God, realize this is wrong on so many levels.
If someone sells the vested 25% after 6 months, they should still be able to sell the other 75% when they vest.
Just make it gradually vest 1% per week, regardless of what is sold. How hard is that?!?
You just have to check the time stamp v.s. the original balance to see how much balance is currently available.
Will BTS be a new block chain or a fork of BTSX?
The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
You are damn right!!!!!!! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
You are damn right!!!!!!! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
You are damn right!!!!!!! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
You are damn right!!!!!!! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
:( Yes we realize it.
The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
You are damn right!!!!!!! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
:( Yes we realize it.
You are damn right!!!!!!! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
:( Yes we realize it.
You are damn right!!!!!!! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
:( Yes we realize it.
I personally didn't invest in your PR skills. I invested in your vision and I3's capacity to make it happen. Up to now I've been flabbergasted more than once by what you've said here on the forum regarding BTS future and what you work on accomplishing with all your team (before and after the merger proposal).
In time you will be surrounded by a team that will polish every announcements you make before it gets out in the wild. But for now I really like the transparency and honesty you use to communicate with the community. It makes you human and more accessible. Some may be outraged by some "mistake" you might have made in certain announcements and say you lack PR skills, but I personally don't give a damn.
You delivered and will continue to do so. And that's why I pledge several of my future pay checks, which I will happily invest in your vision.
I prefer you have average PR skills than an average vision.
Nobody's perfect.
To sum it all up, will there be a decrease in our BTSX holdings because of the merge or an increase in the cap from 2B?
Thanks
You are damn right!!!!!!! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.
I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years. I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS.
Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole? It was a very hard decision for everyone.
Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.
:( Yes we realize it.
I personally didn't invest in your PR skills. I invested in your vision and I3's capacity to make it happen. Up to now I've been flabbergasted more than once by what you've said here on the forum regarding BTS future and what you work on accomplishing with all your team (before and after the merger proposal).
In time you will be surrounded by a team that will polish every announcements you make before it gets out in the wild. But for now I really like the transparency and honesty you use to communicate with the community. It makes you human and more accessible. Some may be outraged by some "mistake" you might have made in certain announcements and say you lack PR skills, but I personally don't give a damn.
You delivered and will continue to do so. And that's why I pledge several of my future pay checks, which I will happily invest in your vision.
I prefer you have average PR skills than an average vision.
Nobody's perfect.
Some of us loss money because of their PR skills....
To sum it all up, will there be a decrease in our BTSX holdings because of the merge or an increase in the cap from 2B?
Thanks
No change in the number of shares. There will be more shares. The value infusion means that when the dust settles the shares you have should be worth more. Far more.
And AGS has 0 liquidity. :D
This has been said over and over, also as an accusation to the effect that AGS is being gifted liquidity.
First of all, AGS holders never wanted quick liquidity. That's why they bought AGS. It was a long term investment to start with. Otherwise they could have bought PTS. I don't think AGS holders are thanking their lucky stars now that they have liquidity. It's more of a liability now. They will have to watch the markets and manage it, be tempted to sell it, etc. AGS holders probably aren't happy with this sudden liquidity.
Another point is that that AGS was always intended to end up effectively liquid. Every time a new DAC came out it was becoming more liquid. Also based on the fact that all along the idea was to build foundation-industry DACs which would then be "snapshoted" in the the future. With time, AGS was alway supposed to be tending toward complete liquidity.
Im all for change and want to see our blockchain adapt. Just get a solid proposal together with all the information and present @ top of forum.
Shit!
So bad proposed!
We(AGSer+PTSer) want not BTSX,not trading liquidity， We want 10% Equity of all the third DAC forever.
+5%
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.
80% BTSX
*NOTE* BTSX will remain liquid...just renamed to BTS.
Rationale:
There is no way to possibly estimate the relative value of all systems and each of us has a different estimate on the viability of each project and their respective growth curves. In light of so many variables I wanted to go with a simple solution. Market caps are not available for VOTE or AGS and BTSX/PTS price has been so volatile that the market doesn't have an honest valuation.
So I hope this proposal gets it "close enough" the advantages we get by combining out weigh any estimation errors.
What does each party get out of the deal?
PTS:
1) No more dilution for mining for an instant gain of ~20% over 2 years
2) A stake in all PAST DAC ideas as well as future... this compensates for getting 3% less than the 10% min of all DACs
3) A vastly higher chance of success for a comparatively lower percent of ownership.
AGS
1) Gradual Liquidity
2) Otherwise the same as PTS
VOTE:
1) Support of the main development team and better liquidity
DNS: network effect of more general user base brought in by VOTE
BTSX
1) No competition for BitUSD
2) Combined network effect
3) Marketing support from Adam / VOTE
4) Long term funding and support plan
5) Dilution at a slower rate than Bitcoin
This said we are working with Eddie and Cob to use BTS as the backend of their music service and I am going to recommend any future merger with them be funded via electing Eddie and Cob as delegates to buy out NOTE holders from their fund raiser over time.
We are going to lower asset creation fees for user issued assets.
BTSX will be renamed to BTS
Snapshot for PTS / AGS will be Nov 5th...
Merger to be complete by end of November.
We seem to have over 83% support from forum members with 130 votes cast and huge support from the marketing team, the development team, and just about everyone.
We will be creating a DevShares chain that will have all experimental updates and have regular release schedules with new "hard fork" features once every 3 months and eventually every 6 months. Details on the DevShares are still unclear. DevShares will hard fork frequently and not be suitable for accumulation of capital.. it may have down time, be hacked, etc... but we will maintain it as a testing ground for all features and for 3rd party developers. Unlike Bitcoin Testnet, DevShares are designed to have economic value of their own and the chain will not "reset ownership". It will therefore also support BitUSD.. but far less liquid.
Future dilution will have a hard coded limit of 10% per year and will be allocated to delegates that campaign and get approval for their pay. This 10% limit may be raised via a hard fork with shareholder approval. Our new "social consensus" will be that "majority shareholders rule" and everything else is subject to change.
Nothing is perfect, I am sure we will lose some people as a result of this change. But my goal is that we can have the funding and flexibility to take on the mainstream with our product offerings of BitUSD / etc.
This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument. The market needs certainty and I hope to get it settled ASAP.
first of all, I appreciate BM's hard work and the whole team. i just have one question, the plan is unfiar and can it be changed.I will try instead of BM (as he has done it about 30 times already).
the new plan is too good for pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS. and for those PTS holders and AGS donators after 2.28 are really unfair.
the most important thing is that the market has proved that, the allocation plan is unfair, the the price of pts has fallen down a lot(that menas the new plan is not good to PTS holders), the DNS price has fallen down too （that menas the new plan is not good for those people who bought AGS after 2.28, because pre-AGS holders have earned much from BTS and the new plan）
i know 3I have all coins, but that cannot convince the other people the plan is fair, because their proportions on these coins are different, maybe they would be more benefical by this allocation plan. but the market has already given the answer to the new plan.
i think the allocation plan must be changed. i know pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS would not agree with me, but most of the other people would agree with me. '
i hope BM can reply on me.
Thank you so much and all your hard work.
first of all, I appreciate BM's hard work and the whole team. i just have one question, the plan is unfiar and can it be changed.
the new plan is too good for pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS. and for those PTS holders and AGS donators after 2.28 are really unfair.
the most important thing is that the market has proved that, the allocation plan is unfair, the the price of pts has fallen down a lot(that menas the new plan is not good to PTS holders), the DNS price has fallen down too （that menas the new plan is not good for those people who bought AGS after 2.28, because pre-AGS holders have earned much from BTS and the new plan）
i know 3I have all coins, but that cannot convince the other people the plan is fair, because their proportions on these coins are different, maybe they would be more benefical by this allocation plan. but the market has already given the answer to the new plan.
i think the allocation plan must be changed. i know pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS would not agree with me, but most of the other people would agree with me. '
i hope BM can reply on me.
Thank you so much and all your hard work.
first of all, I appreciate BM's hard work and the whole team. i just have one question, the plan is unfiar and can it be changed.
the new plan is too good for pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS. and for those PTS holders and AGS donators after 2.28 are really unfair.
the most important thing is that the market has proved that, the allocation plan is unfair, the the price of pts has fallen down a lot(that menas the new plan is not good to PTS holders), the DNS price has fallen down too （that menas the new plan is not good for those people who bought AGS after 2.28, because pre-AGS holders have earned much from BTS and the new plan）
i know 3I have all coins, but that cannot convince the other people the plan is fair, because their proportions on these coins are different, maybe they would be more benefical by this allocation plan. but the market has already given the answer to the new plan.
i think the allocation plan must be changed. i know pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS would not agree with me, but most of the other people would agree with me. '
i hope BM can reply on me.
Thank you so much and all your hard work.
Bytemaster has thought very deeply about the many factors to be considered and he recognizes that there are many different ways of weighting what different people would consider fair.
He put on his different hats, one at a time, as a large stakeholder in each group and asked himself what would be the minimum reasonable deal he could live with (not be happy with) in each group.
He weighed things like market cap, liquidity, risk taken, future potential, likely overlapping membership in other categories, negotiations with each individual developers, an so on. (For example, AGSers in the first 60 days paid much more for their AGS than those in the last 140 days, but got huge BTSX value while the latter donators took a huge risk right at the time of highest doubts about whether we would ever succeed at anything but got really cheap AGS credits.) PTS holders had much more flexibility the whole time. And so on.
Then he took a deep breath and generated a mix that put every group above their minimums using his best judgment.
In his opinion, every group got a good deal even though every group might not be exactly the same depending on which set of metrics one might choose. By changing metrics you can change which group appears to have benefited most and it is not possible to generate a solution that comes out the same for every set of metrics.
So he used his best judgment based on his deep understanding of all issues and his desire to do right by everyone who has supported our efforts.
After the proposal he listened to hundreds of arguments from every point of view looking for any considerations that were so compelling that it would be worth putting the whole community through another round of bickering if he should change it. He only found one: the issue with people who bought into DNS at a high price just before his announcement. He used our supply of DNS to compensate them rather than perturb the fragile deal with any changes.
Finally, it is up to each developer to decide what mix of PTS and AGS to honor and with how much. And it is up to each holder to decide whether to be grateful or resentful without doing the oh-too-human weakness of envying the deal someone else got.
Since the results of this past week's innovations have yielded a hugely more competitive DAC that can only be hurt by more controversy about how to divide the spoils of victory, it is unlikely that BM will reopen the whole can of worms again.
We hope that everyone will look around them at the powerful shiny new starship they have boarded and resist arguing about whether someone else has a better seat. We are all going to get to the moons of Antares III at the same time.
Thanks for understanding. This was not easy.(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130619200757/starwars/images/thumb/9/9e/Naboo_Royal_Starship.png/500px-Naboo_Royal_Starship.png)
first of all, I appreciate BM's hard work and the whole team. i just have one question, the plan is unfiar and can it be changed.I will try instead of BM (as he has done it about 30 times already).
the new plan is too good for pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS. and for those PTS holders and AGS donators after 2.28 are really unfair.
the most important thing is that the market has proved that, the allocation plan is unfair, the the price of pts has fallen down a lot(that menas the new plan is not good to PTS holders), the DNS price has fallen down too （that menas the new plan is not good for those people who bought AGS after 2.28, because pre-AGS holders have earned much from BTS and the new plan）
i know 3I have all coins, but that cannot convince the other people the plan is fair, because their proportions on these coins are different, maybe they would be more benefical by this allocation plan. but the market has already given the answer to the new plan.
i think the allocation plan must be changed. i know pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS would not agree with me, but most of the other people would agree with me. '
i hope BM can reply on me.
Thank you so much and all your hard work.
He tried an impossible task and he failed - the task being to make all parties involved get more new shares that they logically deserve.
While doing so he had to come up with money to compensate all of those wanting more! He decided that to do so he will be unfairly distributing to himself and I3.
So the chances are if you have a position very similar to his... you will end up with slight initial disadvantage.
But rest assured, He and I, firmly believe that in the medium and long run we will end up gaining more then the few % points we lost from this 'unsatisfying enough our greed' distribution.
Cheers.
first of all, I appreciate BM's hard work and the whole team. i just have one question, the plan is unfiar and can it be changed.I will try instead of BM (as he has done it about 30 times already).
the new plan is too good for pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS. and for those PTS holders and AGS donators after 2.28 are really unfair.
the most important thing is that the market has proved that, the allocation plan is unfair, the the price of pts has fallen down a lot(that menas the new plan is not good to PTS holders), the DNS price has fallen down too （that menas the new plan is not good for those people who bought AGS after 2.28, because pre-AGS holders have earned much from BTS and the new plan）
i know 3I have all coins, but that cannot convince the other people the plan is fair, because their proportions on these coins are different, maybe they would be more benefical by this allocation plan. but the market has already given the answer to the new plan.
i think the allocation plan must be changed. i know pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS would not agree with me, but most of the other people would agree with me. '
i hope BM can reply on me.
Thank you so much and all your hard work.
He tried an impossible task and he failed - the task being to make all parties involved get more new shares that they logically deserve.
While doing so he had to come up with money to compensate all of those wanting more! He decided that to do so he will be unfairly distributing to himself and I3.
So the chances are if you have a position very similar to his... you will end up with slight initial disadvantage.
But rest assured, He and I, firmly believe that in the medium and long run we will end up gaining more then the few % points we lost from this 'unsatisfying enough our greed' distribution.
Cheers.
English is not my mother tongue, so sometims i might miss a lot of information and i may not express myself perfectly. and i want to say thanks, but how do you respond to the part, when the suggested plan came out, in the market, the price of BTS increased and the price of PTS and DNS still decreased. that means the people in the market thinks that the new plan is good for BTS holders, bad for DNS and PTS . That means the suggested allocation plan is unfair, right?
BM, Stan, the same questions for you guys~
my answer is that it has proved the allocation plan is unfair to PTS and DNS holders. now you guys decide to compensate for DNS speculators but not all the holders, i think now it is unfair for PTS holders and DNS long-term holders.
thanks~
first of all, I appreciate BM's hard work and the whole team. i just have one question, the plan is unfiar and can it be changed.I will try instead of BM (as he has done it about 30 times already).
the new plan is too good for pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS. and for those PTS holders and AGS donators after 2.28 are really unfair.
the most important thing is that the market has proved that, the allocation plan is unfair, the the price of pts has fallen down a lot(that menas the new plan is not good to PTS holders), the DNS price has fallen down too （that menas the new plan is not good for those people who bought AGS after 2.28, because pre-AGS holders have earned much from BTS and the new plan）
i know 3I have all coins, but that cannot convince the other people the plan is fair, because their proportions on these coins are different, maybe they would be more benefical by this allocation plan. but the market has already given the answer to the new plan.
i think the allocation plan must be changed. i know pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS would not agree with me, but most of the other people would agree with me. '
i hope BM can reply on me.
Thank you so much and all your hard work.
He tried an impossible task and he failed - the task being to make all parties involved get more new shares that they logically deserve.
While doing so he had to come up with money to compensate all of those wanting more! He decided that to do so he will be unfairly distributing to himself and I3.
So the chances are if you have a position very similar to his... you will end up with slight initial disadvantage.
But rest assured, He and I, firmly believe that in the medium and long run we will end up gaining more then the few % points we lost from this 'unsatisfying enough our greed' distribution.
Cheers.
English is not my mother tongue, so sometims i might miss a lot of information and i may not express myself perfectly. and i want to say thanks, but how do you respond to the part, when the suggested plan came out, in the market, the price of BTS increased and the price of PTS and DNS still decreased. that means the people in the market thinks that the new plan is good for BTS holders, bad for DNS and PTS . That means the suggested allocation plan is unfair, right?
BM, Stan, the same questions for you guys~
my answer is that it has proved the allocation plan is unfair to PTS and DNS holders. now you guys decide to compensate for DNS speculators but not all the holders, i think now it is unfair for PTS holders and DNS long-term holders.
thanks~
Since we're talking about absurd.And AGS has 0 liquidity. :D
This has been said over and over, also as an accusation to the effect that AGS is being gifted liquidity.
First of all, AGS holders never wanted quick liquidity. That's why they bought AGS. It was a long term investment to start with. Otherwise they could have bought PTS. I don't think AGS holders are thanking their lucky stars now that they have liquidity. It's more of a liability now. They will have to watch the markets and manage it, be tempted to sell it, etc. AGS holders probably aren't happy with this sudden liquidity.
Another point is that that AGS was always intended to end up effectively liquid. Every time a new DAC came out it was becoming more liquid. Also based on the fact that all along the idea was to build foundation-industry DACs which would then be "snapshoted" in the the future. With time, AGS was alway supposed to be tending toward complete liquidity.
Wow, what an absurd comment. AGS was never "intended to end up effectively liquid." The fact that you can sell your stake in future DACs does not suddenly make AGS liquid. Nice way to contort reality to fit your objective. AGS was always "locked in" and this is exactly why AGS investors received 6X equity for each dollar they invested. PTS investors paid a 6X premium for their liquidity. Now we are going to shoulder the cost for AGS? Nice bait and switch.
That's correct. Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.
I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS. I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal. I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid. It was just a matter of time. I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust). Knowing all this I still purchased PTS. It was my decision, no one forced my hand.
All the information was available. I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future. There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work. If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.
It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.
That's correct. Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.
I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS. I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal. I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid. It was just a matter of time. I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust). Knowing all this I still purchased PTS. It was my decision, no one forced my hand.
All the information was available. I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future. There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work. If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.
It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.
Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.
Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".
Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).
Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.Yes, and that is exactly what i said.
Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest.Who is saying this?
That's correct. Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.
I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS. I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal. I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid. It was just a matter of time. I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust). Knowing all this I still purchased PTS. It was my decision, no one forced my hand.
All the information was available. I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future. There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work. If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.
It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.
Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.
Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".
Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).
Could everyone at III be jailed because of making AGS liquid ? There are plenty of signs that III are issuing digital tokens for monetary "donations". Even if the issuer is DACSUnlimited isn't there enough information for authorities to put everyone in the arrest for a while ?
Was there a consulting with lawyers regarding all the implications of the merger? Or should that happen is it did not yet?That's correct. Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.
I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS. I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal. I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid. It was just a matter of time. I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust). Knowing all this I still purchased PTS. It was my decision, no one forced my hand.
All the information was available. I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future. There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work. If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.
It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.
Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.
Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".
Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).
Could everyone at III be jailed because of making AGS liquid ? There are plenty of signs that III are issuing digital tokens for monetary "donations". Even if the issuer is DACSUnlimited isn't there enough information for authorities to put everyone in the arrest for a while ?
No, it is not likely that anyone would be jailed. It is a civil matter not criminal as far as I understand.
Worst case SEC calls AGS, PTS, and/or BTS a security and our arguments to the contrary are rejected and we are in the same boat as SDICE. That boat has a fine of $50K per security and SDICE raised more money than we did.
Lets not get all worried here.
It is not a "merger"... it is a air drop. We did not buy shares in DNS or PTS...You should change the title of this thread then because it certainly implies merger.
The only thing we did is "merge" the interests of all parties into the success of BTSX.
It is not a "merger"... it is a air drop. We did not buy shares in DNS or PTS...Ok. DNS + VOTE + BTSX is a merger and PTS/AGS -> BTS would also be a merger if I3 only supports chains/projects which honor BTS (20%) instead of PTS/AGS 10/10 %. Does that make sense? (not a merger of companies but more a merger of ledgers in the case of AGS/PTS -> BTS)
The only thing we did is "merge" the interests of all parties into the success of BTSX.
Wait.. yeah.. AGS was actually donations to the DAC creators.. making it liquid now would be like creating new AGS funds out of thin air.. I'd prefer if AGS was just wiped out - AGS holders have already been given shares in BTSX/DNS/VOTE/MUSIC/LOTTO - why should they now be given their funds back?!
Yeah, I agree with 75% PTS and 25% AGS. I don't agree with giving DNS/VOTE as much as people have been suggesting - they weren't even fully functioning DACS.Wait.. yeah.. AGS was actually donations to the DAC creators.. making it liquid now would be like creating new AGS funds out of thin air.. I'd prefer if AGS was just wiped out - AGS holders have already been given shares in BTSX/DNS/VOTE/MUSIC/LOTTO - why should they now be given their funds back?!
What about future DACs? AGS was to raise funds for future DACs but in an ill-liquid fashion thus you recieved a premium. By merging into BTS then AGS will be given future allocation to all DACs in a liquid form.. something that is NEW in the contract for AGS... and one that may have had everyone completely get into AGS knowing this before hand... I held my PTS knowing that more DACs would come along and it would be more valuable as the platform becomes more valuable...
Thus if I had known that AGS would become liquid before Bitshares took off I would have converted all my PTS to AGS which I didn't do knowingly.
According to : http://wiki.bitshares.org/images/e/e7/Distribution_snapshots.jpg
Seems like the only difference is that AGS was not liquid thus offered at a premium to PTS. So I would imagine over time as new interesting DACs were released that PTS would rise to a higher valuation than the average AGS price was over time because the desire to get into a DAC that is successful in a successful environment would make money.
At the very least if this were to happen I would like to see the PTS allocation(based on market price of today) equivalent to the average price of AGS.. thus not a 50/50 split but based on the average price... so if PTS was half of the price of AGS then it should be 75% PTS / 25% AGS... because markets work in cycles and as soon as bitshares took off the desire to get into future dacs would rise thus causing more demand for PTS.
We will be creating a DevShares chain that will have all experimental updates and have regular release schedules with new "hard fork" features once every 3 months and eventually every 6 months. Details on the DevShares are still unclear. DevShares will hard fork frequently and not be suitable for accumulation of capital.. it may have down time, be hacked, etc... but we will maintain it as a testing ground for all features and for 3rd party developers. Unlike Bitcoin Testnet, DevShares are designed to have economic value of their own and the chain will not "reset ownership". It will therefore also support BitUSD.. but far less liquid.how to understand devshares chain, the purpose of this chain is to fix bug before luanch to formal. or other ? I have some understanding , i dont konw if it is right ?
how to understand devshares chain, the purpose of this chain is to fix bug before luanch to formal. or other ? I have some understanding , i dont konw if it is right ?- devshares will be a parallel chain (from what I know -- makes totally sense)
it is a parallel chain with BTS, it start from a snapshot of BTS, and run togather with BTS chain , but will end after the new after merge in BTS chain , delegate not only prodece bts block, but produce devshares block also. the two chains are alone, every btser can test feather on devshares chain. can the client have warn if tester want to use test chain.