BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Riverhead on February 05, 2016, 06:36:10 pm
-
If I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.
What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.
Thoughts?
-
It would probably boost us on coin market cap!
-
Yes .. let's pull a Ripple! :D
-
people would most likely think we diluted even if we didn't.
-
I agree with this proposal, its the best strategy long term
-
people would most likely think we diluted even if we didn't.
Exactly.
Sometimes I feel like the community is looking for problems where really non exist. Let's focus on real problems like liquidity and I believe we'll be fine.
-
people would most likely think we diluted even if we didn't.
Exactly.
Sometimes I feel like the community is looking for problems where really non exist. Let's focus on real problems like liquidity and I believe we'll be fine.
+5%
Lets work on the problems we already have.
-
people would most likely think we diluted even if we didn't.
Exactly.
Sometimes I feel like the community is looking for problems where really non exist. Let's focus on real problems like liquidity and I believe we'll be fine.
Totally! Great idea riverhead
-
If I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.
What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.
Thoughts?
Hell no.
What would happen is that instead of having an $8M market cap at a 2.5B supply, we would go down to a $*M market cap for the 3.7B supply.
The only thing pulling a ripple did was make everyone hate them, remember?
Furthermore, listing 3.7B supply of BTS would not be accurate, because this amount does not exist. It would be like listing BTC's supply at 21M right now, and saying its market cap is 50% higher.
-
If I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.
What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.
Thoughts?
Hell no.
What would happen is that instead of having an $8M market cap at a 2.5B supply, we would go down to a $*M market cap for the 3.7B supply.
The only thing pulling a ripple did was make everyone hate them, remember?
Furthermore, listing 3.7B supply of BTS would not be accurate, because this amount does not exist. It would be like listing BTC's supply at 21M right now, and saying its market cap is 50% higher.
well it did one other thing oretty effectively...destroy a amassive headwind pushing us up past them. had they not done that, i still suspect we would have stayed higher than them....but then again i could be wrong.
-
I also do not think this is a good idea. I would like each of my bts to be worth more than 500 sats.
-
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.
-
I've thought about the same thing, Riverhead, but I think the essential issue is the reserve BTS is sort of "owned" by all the BTS holders (as they can vote to have it used to their benefit). So this is similar to when a company has purchased shares of it's own stock. In such a case, I think the valuation of the stock held by the company is implicitly priced into the value of the "regular" shares held by the shareholders.
In the case of ripple, I think the shares in question were held by founders, not by all the coin holders. In that case I think it's fair to count it as part of the supply (although maintaining a supply of your coin that's not generally known to the general public seems quite underhanded, if that's what happened). But I never paid close attention to what ripple was doing, so I'm not accusing anyone there of anything.
-
In the case of ripple, founders and ripple labs do sell their XRP at the market, hence these XRP are actually a part of available supply. This is a big problem of ripple.
-
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.
I can't tell if this is for or against.
Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.
Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...
-
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.
I can't tell if this is for or against.
Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.
Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...
In order for pool funds to reach the market, they need to change hands. They need to go to personal accounts of witnesses and workers first. Then they become available to market supply. And it is fair to consider this funds only available. Unless you want to lie to yourself.
-
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.
I can't tell if this is for or against.
Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.
Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...
In order for pool funds to reach the market, they need to change hands. They need to go to personal accounts of witnesses and workers first. Then they become available to market supply. And it is fair to consider this funds only available. Unless you want to lie to yourself.
When a company buys back its own stock those shares are off the market. Do they still count towards supply? I honestly don't know but I feel the situation is analogous.
-
I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution.
It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds.
These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.
-
7 шезлонгих9 ш 079 65 890 шт 32 ухх9х цф 7лез 8088 8088 868055 9 и 869 и 869 777 9 и ш 9 [7 799 13 415 9th 80 99381 80 99 URL]ш шо ш зло 799 13 415 799 13 415 в ох ш г 799 13 415 означает 9 ш до г 97912 8088 79814662079 и зло шухова [/URL]7868з079 65 890 7868055 79814662079 7868055 ш ш (http://079 65 890 7868055 79814662079 7868055 ш ш)055 22799 13 415 88щ2222]689754564514443264 ш9{[URL]799 13 415 88щ2222 (http://689754564514443264 ш9{[URL)[/URL]8 08 8799 13 415 9287flkajhLKJHo32873JGF8 9 97912 8 799 13 415 988гг9
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.
Зол Я 9 и в этом шт ш ох ш 7 шашкой >
If I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.
What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.
Thoughts?
Hell no.
What would happen is that instead of having an $8M market cap at a 2.5B supply, we would go down to a $*M market cap for the 3.7B supply.
The only thing pulling a ripple did was make everyone hate them, remember?
Furthermore, listing 3.7B supply of BTS would not be accurate, because this amount does not exist. It would be like listing BTC's supply at 21M right now, and saying its market cap is 50% higher.
well it did one other thing oretty effectively...destroy a amassive headwind pushing us up past them. had they not done that, i still suspect we would have stayed higher than them....but then again i could be wrong.
If I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.
What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.
Thoughts?
Hell no.
What would happen is that instead of having an $8M market cap at a 2.5B supply, we would go down to a $*M market cap for the 3.7B supply.
The only thing pulling a ripple did was make everyone hate them, remember?
Furthermore, listing 3.7B supply of BTS would not be accurate, because this amount does not exist. It would be like listing BTC's supply at 21M right now, and saying its market cap is 50% higher.
-
Щцх
-
Ща 97912 8088 79814662079 ш 89814520192 9 хххххх7лез 98
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.
I can't tell if this is for or against.
Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.
Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...
In order for pool funds to reach the market, they need to change hands. They need to go to personal accounts of witnesses and workers first. Then they become available to market supply. And it is fair to consider this funds only available. Unless you want to lie to yourself.
When a company buys back its own stock those shares are off the market. Do they still count towards supply? I honestly don't know but I feel the situation is analogous.
02 ш9 ш 89814520192 щ 9
-
I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution.
It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds.
These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.
You have to distinguish between your personal funds, which you can sell upon your wish, and company funds, which can not be sold by yourself. Personal property and public property are different things.
-
I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution.
It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds.
These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.
You have to distinguish between your personal funds, which you can sell upon your wish, and company funds, which can not be sold by yourself. Personal property and public property are different things.
Yes, they are different in this case because the value of the shareholder-owned property (I think public property isn't the proper word here, since it implies it's owned by the public where it's in fact owned by the shareholders) is implicitly already valued into the price of all the privately held "shares". If the shareholder-owned property is used as payment to 3rd parties (or even as dividends to shareholders), the value of the privately held shares go down. This is the same reason that stocks drop in price ex-dividend.
-
I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution.
It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds.
These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.
You have to distinguish between your personal funds, which you can sell upon your wish, and company funds, which can not be sold by yourself. Personal property and public property are different things.
Yes, they are different in this case because the value of the shareholder-owned property (I think public property isn't the proper word here, since it implies it's owned by the public where it's in fact owned by the shareholders) is implicitly already valued into the price of all the privately held "shares". If the shareholder-owned property is used as payment to 3rd parties (or even as dividends to shareholders), the value of the privately held shares go down. This is the same reason that stocks drop in price ex-dividend.
Right, "public propety" is not a good wording. Reserve pool is mutual property of shareholders. It is different from personal funds of each shareholder.
-
Soooo could this all be perhaps better handled by better educating shareholders on what the Reserve pool actually is and what impact it has on share value?
-
The whole point of this exercise is to get away from the word dilution as it has a pretty bad stigma in many people's mind. It seems the general opinion is somewhere between, "yes the reserve pool should be included in supply" and "No it shouldn't because although they are real (they can be counted) their existence is already factored into the outstanding, i.e not DAC owned, supply."
If the shareholders decide to fund work for the DAC by spending from the reserve pool, and the shareholders own the DAC, it isn't dilution IMHO because no shares were created or destroyed. To be dilution they would have to be newly minted shares of an arbitrary amount. The market does not live with the specter of an unlimited number of funds suddenly being released onto the market. As JonnyBitcoin said it's already factored in as a known quantity.
Since the reserve pool is DAC owned and shareholder controlled the inclusion of them in the published supply shouldn't affect market price since they cannot all of a sudden flood the market any more than they can now. The big difference is "those in the know" understand they are there and the average trader does not.
It is my position that including the shares in the published supply would better illustrate the DAC's ability to fund itself, give a more accurate and public picture how many BTS actually exist, and take some of the political drama out of the DAC paying for work from the reserve fund.
-
It's a smart idea :D
-
Perhaps it would be better to directly tax stakeholders to fund development.
-
I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats. If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later.
-
I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats. If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later.
Don't know what the specific price fall would be but yes I'm fairly certain the price would fall >25%.
Adding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect.
-
I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats. If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later.
Don't know what the specific price fall would be but yes I'm fairly certain the price would fall >25%.
Adding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect.
We survived that just a couple weeks ago. Imagine going through that again and then never hearing the words Dilution and Bitshares in the same sentence ever again...
However I don't think the price would change much. Typically with something like this it changes because the market is flooded with huge sell pressure. In this case the order books haven't moved at all because the supply on the open market hasn't actually changed. We'd just be reporting how many BTS actually exist.
-
In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?
-
I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats. If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later.
Don't know what the specific price fall would be but yes I'm fairly certain the price would fall >25%.
Adding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect.
We survived that just a couple weeks ago. Imagine going through that again and then never hearing the words Dilution and Bitshares in the same sentence ever again...
However I don't think the price would change much. Typically with something like this it changes because the market is flooded with huge sell pressure. In this case the order books haven't moved at all because the supply on the open market hasn't actually changed. We'd just be reporting how many BTS actually exist.
The market has kind of priced in the reserve fund already but when you actually change the stated supply to reflect that large amount the market will price it in fully.
BitShares is actually getting to a very good place in terms of dilution, in that it's only 9 months away from paying off the merger and it's also been very conservative/circumspect with additional dilution above the 2.5 billion mark.
Adjusting the supply to 3.7 billion could be viewed as the next big negative dilutionary event, shareholders will also be concerned that we'll see more wasteful dilution when it's 'hidden' within the new total as opposed to being held more accountable with current approach.
-
In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?
There isn't really a process. Most people here know there are 3.7BB BTS. We just typically subtract the reserve fund when communicating supply.
-
In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?
There isn't really a process. Most people here know there are 3.7BB BTS. We just typically subtract the reserve fund when communicating supply.
I like the idea myself, mainly because when a BTS is actually burned, it would reflect a reduce in supply that would be noticeable. As of now, burned shares would sort of get lost in the daily supply changes. Remember how great this thread sounded... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19014.0/all.html
-
In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?
There isn't really a process. Most people here know there are 3.7BB BTS. We just typically subtract the reserve fund when communicating supply.
Essentially, we just need to convince Gliss from CMC to change the supply in his database ..
-
Can you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?
-
i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.
but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.
makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.
-
i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.
but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.
makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.
The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.
-
i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.
but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.
makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.
The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.
i thought we have a limit of 400.000 BTS? or can this also be changed? if this is, i didnt have the right information and the available shares should be adjusted on CMC.
-
Can you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?
I understand your frustration at the ad hoc nature of these discussions and the seemingly arbitrary implementation or discarding of ideas. The problem is that there isn't a "you guys". Unless you mean the committee? Right now it's just a brainstorming thread IMHO.
Perhaps the proposal put forth for a vote can include a budget for a PR and Marketing team and the making of a plan. Since this is more of a semantic change anyway marketing is basically all this would be.
-
Can you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?
I understand your frustration at the ad hoc nature of these discussions and the seemingly arbitrary implementation or discarding of ideas. The problem is that there isn't a "you guys". Unless you mean the committee? Right now it's just a brainstorming thread IMHO.
Perhaps the proposal put forth for a vote can include a budget for a PR and Marketing team and the making of a plan. Since this is more of a semantic change anyway marketing is basically all this would be.
@abit IIRC @bunketchain-labs has had an idea for a PR worker ..
-
i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.
but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.
makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.
The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.
i thought we have a limit of 400.000 BTS? or can this also be changed? if this is, i didnt have the right information and the available shares should be adjusted on CMC.
If enough share holders agree, we can easily change that 400K BTS per day limitation. Even possible a hard fork to change the 3.7BB limitation. IMO it's no need to discuss right now at all.
-
Can you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?
I understand your frustration at the ad hoc nature of these discussions and the seemingly arbitrary implementation or discarding of ideas. The problem is that there isn't a "you guys". Unless you mean the committee? Right now it's just a brainstorming thread IMHO.
Perhaps the proposal put forth for a vote can include a budget for a PR and Marketing team and the making of a plan. Since this is more of a semantic change anyway marketing is basically all this would be.
@abit IIRC @bunketchain-labs has had an idea for a PR worker ..
My opinion is always making actions first, if it's a right way, then consider worker or fund raise or something else. Just like what you did with you worker.
-
You will kill bts if you adjust the supply to 3.7 billion. That number is only true if it is used up in worker proposals or witness pay. The price is bts will be cut by a 3rd and traders are going to get margin called and stopped out. Think of what happened to the swiss Frank after they said they were abandoning the euro peg. The frank rose 20% causing exchanges to blow up while many traders were carried out in body bags.
This would be the most detrimental thing ever to happen to bitshares... It will be much worse than the merger.
-
I don't think the price would react at all. It's a non-event. non-change. purely perceptual.
Anyone selling or buying on this non-change doesn't care enough about the project to understand this non-difference, and likely wouldn't even notice.
IMO, I don't think it makes sense to change for CMC reporting though, because the supply is not actually available, even if you accounted for what could conceivably be released over a year or two, it still doesn't amount to much.
However, I do think it makes sense to change the way we communicate and talk about the supply. Having a supply that goes down, and can *only go down is a very positive and healthy way of looking at it. Anywhere you might mention the supply just start with the total supply and if necessary derive the available supply.
-
i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.
but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.
makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.
The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.
i thought we have a limit of 400.000 BTS? or can this also be changed? if this is, i didnt have the right information and the available shares should be adjusted on CMC.
If enough share holders agree, we can easily change that 400K BTS per day limitation. Even possible a hard fork to change the 3.7BB limitation. IMO it's no need to discuss right now at all.
The BTS asset is owned by the null-account for a reason
-
i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.
but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.
makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.
The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.
i thought we have a limit of 400.000 BTS? or can this also be changed? if this is, i didnt have the right information and the available shares should be adjusted on CMC.
If enough share holders agree, we can easily change that 400K BTS per day limitation. Even possible a hard fork to change the 3.7BB limitation. IMO it's no need to discuss right now at all.
The BTS asset is owned by the null-account for a reason
We're able to make a hard fork and change it. Easily.
-
You will kill bts if you adjust the supply to 3.7 billion. That number is only true if it is used up in worker proposals or witness pay. The price is bts will be cut by a 3rd and traders are going to get margin called and stopped out. Think of what happened to the swiss Frank after they said they were abandoning the euro peg. The frank rose 20% causing exchanges to blow up while many traders were carried out in body bags.
This would be the most detrimental thing ever to happen to bitshares... It will be much worse than the merger.
My gut tells me this is the result such an approach will get us.
Perception is everything, and making any "official" adjustments to the already stated supply levels will not be seen as a positive change. And all this just to avoid the talk about dilution? Seems a lot like QE logic by the FED to me, "lets just spend our way out of debt", Keynesian economics. "Lets dilute so we can say we're not diluting".
Revising our official supply from 2.5B to 3.7B regardless of the actual mechanics sends the wrong signal to the market. I fear it would have a negative impact on perception, a contrary impact to the reason stated in the OP.
At the minimum it is a risky move and IMO the anticipated benefit is not worth the risk.
-
Perception is everything, and making any "official" adjustments to the already stated supply levels will not be seen as a positive change. And all this just to avoid the talk about dilution? Seems a lot like QE logic by the FED to me, "lets just spend our way out of debt", Keynesian economics. "Lets dilute so we can say we're not diluting".
It's this sort of perception that I am trying to nip in the bud while we are tiny. The FED mints an arbitrary amount of money to spend their way out of debt. Bitshares can't because there is a hard cap on supply of 3.7B. A little over a billion of that is in the reserve pool that we pretend doesn't exist until we need it. I'm puzzled how some feel that's more honest and transparent.
-
I don't think the price would react at all. It's a non-event. non-change. purely perceptual.
Anyone selling or buying on this non-change doesn't care enough about the project to understand this non-difference, and likely wouldn't even notice.
IMO, I don't think it makes sense to change for CMC reporting though, because the supply is not actually available, even if you accounted for what could conceivably be released over a year or two, it still doesn't amount to much.
However, I do think it makes sense to change the way we communicate and talk about the supply. Having a supply that goes down, and can *only go down is a very positive and healthy way of looking at it. Anywhere you might mention the supply just start with the total supply and if necessary derive the available supply.
+5% +5%
-
Rather than adjusting the supply, we could just commit to the maximum level of inflation and then allocate it as best as we can. This way any unexpected reductions in inflation can boost the price rather than fear, uncertainty, and doubt every time we vote for something.
-
... allocate it as best as we can. ...
How?
-
... allocate it as best as we can. ...
How?
It would create a market competition for the BEST things to fund. If people don't like where the money is going they can bid better / more work for the same money.
-
... allocate it as best as we can. ...
How?
It would create a market competition for the BEST things to fund. If people don't like where the money is going they can bid better / more work for the same money.
you mean depend on the same crew who believed merger was the best thing for BitShares to decide/bid the fittest option for BitShares ?
Your idea always sounded good in a pure speculative sensation , but in reality , things doesn't work like that . "If X then Y" works in programming language because there is only fixed outcome and fixed condition , but in reality neither X or Y is fixed .
No . it would not create a market competition for the BEST things to fund because neither you or the crew know what is best to fund . Spending money and getting return is a rare ability , that kind of ability never belongs to most people .
VCs give money to hundreds of companies , only few of them would prevail . That's how hard it is to run a business , that's how hard it is to fund something and getting return .
To the most extent , competition for bids would create the solution with the best price for a specific task , but it wouldn't be good to the business if the task wasn't helping the business to begin with .
If you can't get bunch of people to help you run a successful company , you can't depend on a bunch of people who naive enough to believe "new features would boost the market cap" to spend dilution on "the best features" in order to boost the value of BitShares either .