BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on December 12, 2015, 12:48:17 am
-
To help prioritize and/or value various proposals we have created some new assets that act as a pre-sale auction for ownership of various revenue streams. The first revenue stream is 80% of all confidential transfer fees. We have registered the STEALTH asset with a maximum supply of 1M shares. If you are interested in owning a cut of this revenue stream you can place a bid in this market. Stealth fees will be set to 3x the normal transfer fee set by the committee.
@onceuponatime has an implicit bid of 12 BTS per STEALTH for 1M shares giving STEALTH a market cap of $45,000.
The purpose of this market is to help prioritize various features and give the more passive members of the community an easy way of evaluating / comparing the various proposals. Those that have the highest market caps (with sufficient liquidity to fund the development) represent the highest value features.
For this proposal we have already produced a basic GUI workflow that will be implemented before any STEALTH is actually sold to the market. At no time will proceeds from this sale be spent prior to delivering of the feature. If you are interested in stealth and believe it will be a profitable feature for BitShares, then place some bids to show your support.
Once the feature is implemented, ONCEUPONATIME will be given 1M STEALTH which he may choose to sell as he sees fit.
https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/market/STEALTH_BTS
-
Cool way to do this. +1
-
Very interesting approach, essentially put your money where your mouth is.
Looking forward to seeing the other items for us to vote on/invest in.
-
To help prioritize and/or value various proposals we have created some new assets
What are the others?
doh
-
I'm the 15.1 bid.
-
So this will just be some kind of experience to see how it goes? Meaning, Stealth will go forward, paid by onceuponatime and then if this test goes right, this same method will be applied to the other planned features you listed on the other thread like bond markets, prediction markets, gambling, etc?
-
So what we're bidding on is the FBA itself, which is all planned to go to onceup, who will fill buy orders if he chooses to (is nice enough)?
I'm not judging the plan just asking somebody to confirm my understanding.
-
great initiative. :)
-
So this will just be some kind of experience to see how it goes? Meaning, Stealth will go forward, paid by onceuponatime and then if this test goes right, this same method will be applied to the other planned features you listed on the other thread like bond markets, prediction markets, gambling, etc?
More than just an experiment.
Stealth is a trailblazer, but a more general test case is under way.
Cryptonomex will sponsor some of its own features in parallel.
But others (investors and developers) are encouraged to join in (individually and as groups).
And some have already indicated their intent to do exactly that.
May a thousand variants bloom.
-
So this will just be some kind of experience to see how it goes? Meaning, Stealth will go forward, paid by onceuponatime and then if this test goes right, this same method will be applied to the other planned features you listed on the other thread like bond markets, prediction markets, gambling, etc?
More than just an experiment.
Stealth is a trailblazer, but a more general test case is under way.
Cryptonomex will sponsor some of its own features in parallel.
But others (investors and developers) are encouraged to join in (individually and as groups).
And some have already indicated their intent to do exactly that.
May a thousand variants bloom.
Someone has to outline the process for creating one of these markets. How much does it cost us to create?
-
So this will just be some kind of experience to see how it goes? Meaning, Stealth will go forward, paid by onceuponatime and then if this test goes right, this same method will be applied to the other planned features you listed on the other thread like bond markets, prediction markets, gambling, etc?
More than just an experiment.
Stealth is a trailblazer, but a more general test case is under way.
Cryptonomex will sponsor some of its own features in parallel.
But others (investors and developers) are encouraged to join in (individually and as groups).
And some have already indicated their intent to do exactly that.
May a thousand variants bloom.
Hedge Funds will move into BitShares :P
-
Head Shops will too
-
How long can one place a bid for the stealth asset? Until it is delivered i.e. Feb 2016? If that is the case what is the point of locking bts for Stealth from now?
I want to make sure I understand correctly because I do not want to miss my chance to bid..
thanks
-
To help prioritize and/or value various proposals we have created some new assets that act as a pre-sale auction for ownership of various revenue streams. The first revenue stream is 80% of all confidential transfer fees. We have registered the STEALTH asset with a maximum supply of 1M shares. If you are interested in owning a cut of this revenue stream you can place a bid in this market. Stealth fees will be set to 3x the normal transfer fee set by the committee.
@onceuponatime has an implicit bid of 12 BTS per STEALTH for 1M shares giving STEALTH a market cap of $45,000.
The purpose of this market is to help prioritize various features and give the more passive members of the community an easy way of evaluating / comparing the various proposals. Those that have the highest market caps (with sufficient liquidity to fund the development) represent the highest value features.
For this proposal we have already produced a basic GUI workflow that will be implemented before any STEALTH is actually sold to the market. At no time will proceeds from this sale be spent prior to delivering of the feature. If you are interested in stealth and believe it will be a profitable feature for BitShares, then place some bids to show your support.
Once the feature is implemented, ONCEUPONATIME will be given 1M STEALTH which he may choose to sell as he sees fit.
https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/market/STEALTH_BTS
What mechanism is regulating how much goes to FBA holders and how much (of the tx fees) goes to BTS holders. In this case 80% to FBA holders and 20% to BTS holders is proposed.
And: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?
I kind of know the answers to these questions (the first q: In the end the percentage doesnt matter of if all BTS holders where sufficiently informed -> doesn't have to be... -> in the end it's a PR issue; second q: It's a soft consensus question that can't be answered -> but we should at least try to formulate that soft consensus a bit).
Another question: Do these FBA assets (not the IUA that represent them atm) have an issuer? Is there a counterparty risk to them?
And the OP also doesnt say how CNX is getting paid for developing the proposed Stealth feature. That wouldnt matter if CNX would take the same percentage of all FBAs...Is that the plan?
-
If that is the case what is the point of locking bts for Stealth from now?
I guess the point of placing bids is to show your support so that CNX can estimate how their priorities should be aligned.
It's a kind of voting with your money for specific features to be implemented. At least that's how I understand it.
-
If that is the case what is the point of locking bts for Stealth from now?
I guess the point of placing bids is to show your support so that CNX can estimate how their priorities should be aligned.
It's a kind of voting with your money for specific features to be implemented. At least that's how I understand it.
I understand the same thing as you but I want to make sure we understand correctly since that just doesn't make any sense...
1) I can place a bid for 10 mil bts (i wish i had them) @ 30 and show my enormous support to stealth just to withdraw my bid before launch?
2) Why place a bid now since by the time of launch bts price will have significantly changed so the equivalent of the Fair market bid of 12 bts to make $45k usd will not apply by the time of delivery
3) it would make much more sense to bid in biusd and not in bts, so onceupontime can actually share the usd risk of his investment with other members..
-
If that is the case what is the point of locking bts for Stealth from now?
I guess the point of placing bids is to show your support so that CNX can estimate how their priorities should be aligned.
It's a kind of voting with your money for specific features to be implemented. At least that's how I understand it.
No, it is the usual not thought through process that is so typical for BTS. In other words do not try to find the logic where there is none.
it goes like this - you bid/vote with your money [with not clear definition/explanation how this voting or share distribution works] you do so 6 mo in advance [with no clear idea what is the benefit for you to do so] and in the mean time we (CNX) will chose a feature based on our own and disregarding said voting.
The feature we have pre-determined we gonna select - aka stealth - will have biding in itself, how exactly this works and why it is needed is even more unclear than the voting for the other projects. But it goes something like this - so that the private investor can determine at what price he might be able to sell if his shares where available now [which they are not]. There are no benefits for such bidders, but at least they can vote with their money for something , even if they do not what this something is....It for sure is something stealth related, though.
-
If that is the case what is the point of locking bts for Stealth from now?
I guess the point of placing bids is to show your support so that CNX can estimate how their priorities should be aligned.
It's a kind of voting with your money for specific features to be implemented. At least that's how I understand it.
ooooh! I see. thank you for clarifying that. basically they want to see what public demand there is for the FBA.
-
i don't get the purpose of this bids.
the 1 million shares of STEALTH will be transfered to once anyway, so why should i bid?
what i don't like at the moment is the 80% to STEALTH without the reverse feature talked directly on the first thread of this feature.
i agree with tonyk here - it is not a bid clear for for i am bidding and what are the terms.
a good idea (FBAs) executed in a rush.
-
what i don't like at the moment is the 80% to STEALTH without the reverse feature talked directly on the first thread of this feature.
It now just like the ref-program which splits fees at 80%/20% (with no cap)..
-
i don't get the purpose of this bids.
the 1 million shares of STEALTH will be transfered to once anyway, so why should i bid?
what i don't like at the moment is the 80% to STEALTH without the reverse feature talked directly on the first thread of this feature.
i agree with tonyk here - it is not a bid clear for for i am bidding and what are the terms.
a good idea (FBAs) executed in a rush.
The purpose of the BID is help onceuponatime to know how much he could sell his stake for and to give stakeholders an opportunity to see market demand when they vote for stealth.
-
i don't get the purpose of this bids.
the 1 million shares of STEALTH will be transfered to once anyway, so why should i bid?
what i don't like at the moment is the 80% to STEALTH without the reverse feature talked directly on the first thread of this feature.
i agree with tonyk here - it is not a bid clear for for i am bidding and what are the terms.
a good idea (FBAs) executed in a rush.
The purpose of the BID is help onceuponatime to know how much he could sell his stake for and to give stakeholders an opportunity to see market demand when they vote for stealth.
For STEALTH, I would rather place a bid JUST BEFORE onceuponatime is able to sell his stake. Why now? Are stake in bid orders able to vote?
For other features/UIAs, since it's able to cancel a bid, what would happen if someone bid with a big amount of stake and high price, but cancel it before you place an ask order? I think it would make more sense if ask orders are placed first, just like what METAFEES/OBITS/Moonstone did -- best to return funds to the buyers with an interest if the feature can't be implemented at last.
-
i don't get the purpose of this bids.
the 1 million shares of STEALTH will be transfered to once anyway, so why should i bid?
what i don't like at the moment is the 80% to STEALTH without the reverse feature talked directly on the first thread of this feature.
i agree with tonyk here - it is not a bid clear for for i am bidding and what are the terms.
a good idea (FBAs) executed in a rush.
The purpose of the BID is help onceuponatime to know how much he could sell his stake for and to give stakeholders an opportunity to see market demand when they vote for stealth.
-5%
-
The purpose of the BID is help onceuponatime to know how much he could sell his stake for and to give stakeholders an opportunity to see market demand when they vote for stealth.
For STEALTH, I would rather place a bid JUST BEFORE onceuponatime is able to sell his stake. Why now? Are stake in bid orders able to vote?
I'm not 100 % sure on this but I think they are able to vote. Please somebody correct if I'm wrong.
For other features/UIAs, since it's able to cancel a bid, what would happen if someone bid with a big amount of stake and high price, but cancel it before you place an ask order?
Of course this bidding is not the perfect way to get information, but even if somebody cancels their bid, this is still the best mechanism we can use right now. If you have anything better in mind, I'd like to hear it. At least people are using their own money with this bidding – it gives much more higher quality information than polls on the forum.
I think it would make more sense if ask orders are placed first, just like what METAFEES/OBITS/Moonstone did -- best to return funds to the buyers with an interest if the feature can't be implemented at last.
This would bring the risks with securities laws that Cryptonomex wants to avoid. If the FBA is sold before the feature is implemented on the blockchain, the FBA could be interpreted as a security. This could be avoided if somebody else produces the FBA and the feature in a jurisdiction where risks are negligible.