BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on February 16, 2014, 02:40:59 am
-
There has been a lot of confusion over how Invictus will handle our product roadmap with BitShares X, PTS, and AGS honoring. We have spent some time discussing the roadmap and upgrade path and would like to share with you all our current thinking. As always, this roadmap is subject to change as necessary to adjust to market conditions.
BitShares XT - The Experimental Test Network for BitShares X will be launched as soon as we have a minimal viable product. In the goal of launching a minimal viable product we have stripped features that would delay release and which complicate the system. As such BitShares XT has removed certain features: Ripple Consensus, Interest on BitAssets, Escrow Transaction, Etc.
BitShares XI - Will be our experimental network to see what happens if BitAssets pay a Fixed Interest rate.
BitShares XV - Will be our experimental network to see what happens if BitAssets set their interest rate via a parallel prediction market.
BitShares XC - WIll replace TaPOS with the consensus algorithm and may come an variants with I, V, and T.
Of course others such as Toast have suggested that once BitShares XT has launched successfully they would like to launch versions for stocks, commodities, and other items and his plan was to honor AGS and PTS 50/50 just like BitShares XT. We have thought long and hard about the implications of this roadmap on the demand for BitShares XT with the potential to be competing with what may be perceived as upgrades (but which could be complete failures...) and concluded that this entire product line of decentralized banks and exchanges are all derived from a single PTS/AGS honoring DAC concept.
If our goal is to see the value of BitShares XT to grow then we need to future-proof peoples investment in BitShares XT after launch against being devalued by one of our planned upgrades or the flood of variants with different assets. For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch. Thus the primary vehicle for investing in future BitShares X chains will be to own BitShares XT.... likewise, chains that are variants of BitShares XI or XV should honor their parent with 100% stake.
When honoring a prior BitShares X chain only the BTS is honored and NOT the BitAssets. BitAsset owners do not own a stake in the chain, they are hedged against the chain and there is no way to honor their positions in the new chain because the prices and collateral etc would not be proper.
Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares. If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again. Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment. After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT. However, all investments in BitShares XT proper should hold off until the likelihood of a reset to genesis due to catastrophic failure has passed. Remember this is an economic experiment with new software with minimal testing and so I do not recommend investing anything you cannot afford to lose between Feb 28th and when XT has enough time under its belt that it has earned its valuation. This is Bitcoin 2008...
How does this effect AGS and PTS?
We will be developing additional blockchains not based upon BitShares X business model.
These chains include:
BitShares DNS
BitShares Bingo
BitShares Music
BitShares Vote
...
And many others that we have designs for. In the interest of giving one experiment time to run without competing with yourselves, we are considering focusing on one of these other DACs while the BitShares XT experiment runs before moving ahead with XI, XV, or XC. We will however encourage others to implement these variants and experiment with them in parallel if they are so inclined.
What does this mean for DACs?
It means that in a free market where many variants will be launched of every idea under the sun and to maximize the value of your chain and the acceptance of new variants on the initial idea, the stake holders of the parent chain should be honored 100%.
PTS & AGS are the parent chain for all NEW DAC ideas and not for all instances of these ideas. Once a chain is spawned from PTS and AGS future variants should honor that chain rather than going back to PTS & AGS. This is keeping with our model where we said that honoring a AGS and PTS honoring DAC with 100% is just as good as honoring AGS and PTS directly.
Launching BitShares XT and Future DACs
In the interest of keeping Invictus focused on developing software and free of any regulatory risks associated with actually launching these potentially controversial businesses, we have decided that we will not actually launch any blockchains or host any servers for them. We will produce the software and it will be up to some enterprising individual to take our code, make the minimal modifications necessary to package it, set up the seed server, and host a site to download it. In the opinion of our lawyers and advisors there is a significant regulatory difference between writing and publishing open source software and deploying software. A company that develops software for Bitstamp, Mt.Gox, or the New York Stock Exchange is not subject to the regulation that the exchanges are subject to. That said, I am sure there are people who live in more enlightened countries who can legally take this step.
We will market and promote the potential of our software independent of any particular instance that is deployed. Therefore, from our perspective the launch of BitShares XT is merely a stable 'release' tag in our github repository and nothing more. We feel it is in the best interest of everyone in the community (PTS and AGS holders) if Invictus can take as many steps as possible to avoid any Unnecessary Imperial EntanglementsTM.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2s94vu9.jpg)
-
"We will market and promote the potential of our software independent of any particular instance that is deployed. Therefore, from our perspective the launch of BitShares XT is merely a stable 'release' tag in our github repository and nothing more."
Would you please extrapolate on this statement with regard to what a non-tech investor in PTS and AGS would be advised to do?
-
"We will market and promote the potential of our software independent of any particular instance that is deployed. Therefore, from our perspective the launch of BitShares XT is merely a stable 'release' tag in our github repository and nothing more."
Would you please extrapolate on this statement with regard to what a non-tech investor in PTS and AGS would be advised to do?
There is no change from the perspective of PTS and AGS investors getting a cut in future DACs. This is merely an issue of decentralizing the launch of DACs.
This is good news for PTS and AGS holders because it further protects your investment in our future ability to develop new DACs.
-
This sounds like it will lead to an ugly decoupling of value at the PTS/AGS BitShares XT split (i.e. PTS/AGS will lose a lot of value on the 28th).
It seems like we have a few different sources of value here and basically we're just talking about where we want them to fall.
BitShares token value
BitShares (presumed) utility value
Other DAC value
With the old plan BitShares value reverted to PTS/AGS in the case of XT failing whereas now it stays with XT. So we remove some uncertainty of how much BitShares XT will be worth at the cost of extracting a lot of the value of PTS/AGS and putting it into XT.
Both plans seem reasonable to me, with their own benefits and drawbacks; if I'm understanding correctly.
-
AGS and PTS remain a vehicle for getting a cut of what we are doing overall... having some of this value transfer to BitShares XT is better than BitShares XT failing to gain traction because people are afraid of constant resets to AGS/PTS holders. People would be asking themselves, should I buy XT or wait for the interest bearing version. As a result many people would hold off buying XT. If every new chain then went back to AGS/PTS then that would significantly undermine BitShares X which will soon have its own life and chain.
Holders of AGS and PTS actually don't lose any value, it just moves from one bucket into another. It also does not hurt our AGS funding with PTS because we will now have a bunch of BTS that will be going up in value faster.
We will attempt to produce a roadmap before the 28th that highlights the future value of PTS and AGS. Personally I think too much weight is being placed on BitShares X and I am equally optimistic about the value of our other DACs.
-
This roadmap with a chain of chains sounds like a good idea to me.
I don't care which bucket has the water in it as long as I own both buckets. :)
If our goal is to see the value of BitShares XT to grow then we need to future-proof peoples investment in BitShares XT after launch against being devalued by one of our planned upgrades or the flood of variants with different assets. For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch. Thus the primary vehicle for investing in future BitShares X chains will be to own BitShares XT.... likewise, chains that are variants of BitShares XI or XV should honor their parent with 100% stake.
When honoring a prior BitShares X chain only the BTS is honored and NOT the BitAssets. BitAsset owners do not own a stake in the chain, they are hedged against the chain and there is no way to honor their positions in the new chain because the prices and collateral etc would not be proper.
I assume, but could you please confirm:
When a BTS spapshot is taken, any BTS held as collateral for shorting a BitAsset is accounted towards the one holding the short position.
-
The whole idea does make sense to me. It makes me realized much more that we have very long way to go before but I do think the road map will dirve us to the right way. Thanks for the information and smart decision.
Just one question for below paragraph, I assume but want to confirm that that means 2/28 will be a REAL FINAL allocation for BitShares X from PTS/AGS holding status, even finally the test chain is dead, we will just restart it from the 2/28 allocation status instead of making a new PTS/AGS snapshoot as said before, NO more PTS/AGS snapshoot for Bitshares X allocation, correct?
Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares. If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again. Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment. After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT.
-
The whole idea does make sense to me. It makes me realized much more that we have very long way to go before but I do think the road map will dirve us to the right way. Thanks for the information and smart decision.
Just one question for below paragraph, I assume but want to confirm that that means 2/28 will be a REAL FINAL allocation for BitShares X from PTS/AGS holding status, even finally the test chain is dead, we will just restart it from the 2/28 allocation status instead of making a new PTS/AGS snapshoot as said before, NO more PTS/AGS snapshoot for Bitshares X allocation, correct?
Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares. If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again. Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment. After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT.
I agree, I think I3 should commit to the feb 28th snapshot even in the case of catastrophic chain failure after the end of March.
I like the roadmap and the idea that BTS X will be used to make snapshots for BTS X* chains. With the above suggestion I would like it even more.
-
The whole idea does make sense to me. It makes me realized much more that we have very long way to go before but I do think the road map will dirve us to the right way. Thanks for the information and smart decision.
Just one question for below paragraph, I assume but want to confirm that that means 2/28 will be a REAL FINAL allocation for BitShares X from PTS/AGS holding status, even finally the test chain is dead, we will just restart it from the 2/28 allocation status instead of making a new PTS/AGS snapshoot as said before, NO more PTS/AGS snapshoot for Bitshares X allocation, correct?
Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares. If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again. Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment. After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT.
I agree, I think I3 should commit to the feb 28th snapshot even in the case of catastrophic chain failure after the end of March.
I like the roadmap and the idea that BTS X will be used to make snapshots for BTS X* chains. With the above suggestion I would like it even more.
I actually think Bytemaster already make that statement that 2/28 snapshot is the final one for BithsharesX allocated to PTS/AGS. Below two sentences in his post is pretty clear for this point, I just ask the question to double check.
"we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again"
"After Feb 28th...only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT"
-
Can't wait to see the 12 day roller coaster ride for PTS, when this news comes out.
-
In short, the snapshot on 28th feb will be used for bitshares xt, and bitshares xt snapshots will be used for other bitshares chains.
And other dacs will use other pts/ags snapshots.
Is my understanding correct?
-
In short, the snapshot on 28th feb will be used for bitshares xt, and bitshares xt snapshots will be used for other bitshares chains.
And other dacs will use other pts/ags snapshots.
Is my understanding correct?
Yea
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Can't wait to see the 12 day roller coaster ride for PTS, when this news comes out.
I do not think anyone will sell until after the snapshot has been taken... After the snapshot it could be a free fall until we get closer to future products honoring pts directly.
-
Can't wait to see the 12 day roller coaster ride for PTS, when this news comes out.
I do not think anyone will sell until after the snapshot has been taken... After the snapshot it could be a free fall until we get closer to future products honoring pts directly.
on your marks...get set...
-
Can't wait to see the 12 day roller coaster ride for PTS, when this news comes out.
I do not think anyone will sell until after the snapshot has been taken... After the snapshot it could be a free fall until we get closer to future products honoring pts directly.
The price of AGS will go through the roof from now until 02/28. Get 3.5X BTS. :-\
-
Between now and the 28th we will be announcing details on some of our other DACs as well...
Personally I am looking forward to buying after the 28th :)
-
Does this mean that potentially after the February 28th date, PTS/AGS will go down considerably, as buying them on a exchange is worthless because the snapshot was already taken?
So holders will just have to wait till they get their money back (and then some) when their stake in BitShares and other DACs come to fruition?
Whats the plans for initially purchasing bitshares? Where do you buy them from?
Will the PTS/BTS blockchain just die because minings etc is worthless?
Is there some type of tool folks can use to make sure they are part of the snapshot?
-
Does this mean that potentially after the February 28th date, PTS/AGS will go down considerably, as buying them on a exchange is worthless because the snapshot was already taken?
Yes, they are worthless if you are only interested in shares of BTS X
So holders will just have to wait till they get their money back (and then some) when their stake in BitShares and other DACs come to fruition?
Yes, or when PTS goes back up in value because of some new announced dAC
Whats the plans for initially purchasing bitshares? Where do you buy them from?
Is there some type of tool folks can use to make sure they are part of the snapshot?
PTS/AGS holders will import their wallets into BTS X and have their bitshares right there ready to go. Make sure you control all your private keys!
Will the PTS/BTS blockchain just die because minings etc is worthless?
Nope, you should read dan's TAPOS paper for some insight into what mining actually accomplishes and why you don't need it for a secure blockchain. As long as there are nodes on the network the chain will be fine.
-
How will AGS from founder IDs be claimed? With the private key for the ID?
-
How will AGS from founder IDs be claimed? With the private key for the ID?
Yes
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
For those of you concerned about the value of PTS or AGS, let me give you a long-term perspective from the marketing guy:
The value of owning PTS and AGS is that you have a stake in all the future businesses we build as well as every other business anyone else builds on the platform. So while BitShares X is an amazing opportunity in itself, I'm more excited about a day years from now when there will be many, many DACs built on this technology. Some of them will be duds, some will be profitable and a few will be hugely profitable. Imagine a small drip of dividends from many different sources that adds up to a stream (or raging river?) of value going to those who holds AGS or PTS. Yes please.
(IMHO) Wringing hands over BitSharesX would be like worrying about the first company Berkshire Hathaway decided to invest in during the 1960's. Today a single share of Berkshire is worth over $150,000. So whether you got in Nov 5, you're just now getting started or you join us way out in the future, there is plenty of opportunity. So enjoy the ride!
Bigger Than Bitcoin,
B
-
Between now and the 28th we will be announcing details on some of our other DACs as well...
Personally I am looking forward to buying after the 28th :)
如果28日之前没到达你们的期望值，28日之后会失败的，投资人没看到产品，只有个mvp.bts没检验，画大饼大家下次不会买账的！但愿我是错的 :-[
-
For those of you concerned about the value of PTS or AGS, let me give you a long-term perspective from the marketing guy:
The value of owning PTS and AGS is that you have a stake in all the future businesses we build as well as every other business anyone else builds on the platform. So while BitShares X is an amazing opportunity in itself, I'm more excited about a day years from now when there will be many, many DACs built on this technology. Some of them will be duds, some will be profitable and a few will be hugely profitable. Imagine a small drip of dividends from many different sources that adds up to a stream (or raging river?) of value going to those who holds AGS or PTS. Yes please.
(IMHO) Wringing hands over BitSharesX would be like worrying about the first company Berkshire Hathaway decided to invest in during the 1960's. Today a single share of Berkshire is worth over $150,000. So whether you got in Nov 5, you're just now getting started or you join us way out in the future, there is plenty of opportunity. So enjoy the ride!
Bigger Than Bitcoin,
B
I'm a little confused.
BitShares XT - The Experimental Test Network for BitShares X will be launched as soon as we have a minimal viable product. In the goal of launching a minimal viable product we have stripped features that would delay release and which complicate the system. As such BitShares XT has removed certain features: Ripple Consensus, Interest on BitAssets, Escrow Transaction, Etc.
BitShares XI - Will be our experimental network to see what happens if BitAssets pay a Fixed Interest rate.
BitShares XV - Will be our experimental network to see what happens if BitAssets set their interest rate via a parallel prediction market.
BitShares XC - WIll replace TaPOS with the consensus algorithm and may come an variants with I, V, and T.
Are all of these going to be derived from Feb 28th even if they are issued months in the future? Is XT going to become XI going to become XV going to become XC? Are they each their own chain, and if they're reset it goes to Feb 28th or is that just the main chain?
How are you planning on educating buyers/sellers of pts on exchanges? This seems like a really important point for anyone interested in PTS to understand and yet will be a memo it will be impossible to pervasively express. I am very concerned that you have too many highly similar chains on the horizon and it'll be incredibly confusing to me, much less the normies that need to become involved in this project eventually.
-
Adam,
We wanted to mitigate the confusion so it will be very simple. BitShares XT will be a single chain and everyone interested in that chain is no longer concerned with AGS or PTS after the 28th.
We are unlikely to produce these other variants (interest, variable interest, consensus) in 2014 because it would confuse the market which will require time to learn about the mechanics of BitShares X in the simplified form. When we do decide to launch an enhanced version of BitShares X with some of these other features it will honor BitShares XT rather than PTS and AGS under the grandfather clause in the original PTS social consensus. This is designed to protect everyones investment in BitShares X and eliminate the potential that our future upgrades will harm their initial investment.
So if it were up to us there would only be a single chain that users need to worry about for the next year.
We will be preparing information on some of our other DACs in the weeks ahead. But for now we are focused on BitShares XT and executing on this simple version before rushing to add features and additional compleixity.
-
We are unlikely to produce these other variants (interest, variable interest, consensus) in 2014 because it would confuse the market which will require time to learn about the mechanics of BitShares X in the simplified form...This is designed to protect everyones investment in BitShares X and eliminate the potential that our future upgrades will harm their initial investment.
So if it were up to us there would only be a single chain that users need to worry about for the next year.
But it's not going to be up to III, right? I can't imagine that all the players capable of forking BitShares X are going to wait a year to launch chains for stocks, prediction markets and everything else under the sun. Their forks may fail if they do not follow the social consensus, but if they do their 'BitShares XI' chain would likely out-compete III's later one.
-
Correct... if the market produces these extra chains then we all win.
Obviously if they produce a chain with interest that doesn't honor AGS/PTS or BitShares XT with a large cut, someone will fork them. My point is that our goal is to grow the market and maximize the number of chains out there. If we can offload work to other market participants while we grow new ideas then everyone wins.
Likewise, we cannot enforce our suggestion of honoring BitShares XT for derived chains or any particular AGS / PTS snapshot. We will produce the code and others will use to it to maximum effect and we all win. Toast is already planning to launch some so it should be fun to watch.
Note this is also best for AGS and PTS holders as any work offloaded on the general market means the funds we have left can be used more effectively at things that are not easily offloaded.
-
Adam,
We wanted to mitigate the confusion so it will be very simple. BitShares XT will be a single chain and everyone interested in that chain is no longer concerned with AGS or PTS after the 28th.
We are unlikely to produce these other variants (interest, variable interest, consensus) in 2014 because it would confuse the market which will require time to learn about the mechanics of BitShares X in the simplified form. When we do decide to launch an enhanced version of BitShares X with some of these other features it will honor BitShares XT rather than PTS and AGS under the grandfather clause in the original PTS social consensus. This is designed to protect everyones investment in BitShares X and eliminate the potential that our future upgrades will harm their initial investment.
So if it were up to us there would only be a single chain that users need to worry about for the next year.
We will be preparing information on some of our other DACs in the weeks ahead. But for now we are focused on BitShares XT and executing on this simple version before rushing to add features and additional compleixity.
Daniel, I wrote this for a different project but think it is very applicable to your situation here. https://www.dropbox.com/s/y0pk4qa4mjl80zp/The%20Roadmap%20%28Incentivizing%20Outside%20R%26D%29.pdf
TL;DR lay out what you want to do and lock up the money that you would devote to it if you had the time or could magically make the results appear, let the community add to the bounty to make it more attractive over time and if by the time you get around to it nobody else has solved the problem there will be more money in the bucket than when you put up your side if the community in fact wants the feature.
With regards to the other chains, if you have no intent to develop them imminently, the OP is very confusing and I'd really recommend you either remove them entirely or put a header over them saying "Potential future chains 2015" so it is understood. The naming convention is terrible and really confusing.
-
I am still confused about what happens after February 28th. So now buying PTS is not worth anything. But AGS stays around and those now get converted to Bitshares XT? Is it mentioned somewhere what the ratios on that look like? Sorry if I missed it somewhere!
As you purchase Bitshares XT does that automatically turn into equivalent purchases of XI, XV, and XC? What happens when you purchase Bitshare XT after XI and XV have already been released?
If XI, XV, and XC do not honor XT (that was a mouthful :)). I feel like having all these chains out there implementing different features of Bitshares x would lower the value of the original Bitshares X (which my understanding is Bitshares XT).
If XI, XV, and XC DO honor XT. the assumption is we are deploying XI, XV, and XC to test out features we want to incorporate back into XT, which will probably be called something else? Bitshares XT2? Wouldn't XI, XV, and XC serve better not to be mentioned as somewhat official products (with formal titles) as you have in the original post? I would keep them more as separate, keep the focus on Bitshares X and say how Bitshares X - Version 0 (which is really XT) will have XYZ features, and that Bitshares X - Version 0.5 will have XYZ feature (which is implemented through our alternate test chain).
Apologies if I miss some fundamental understanding of this.
-
I do not think this is a good idea.
First there were PTS which were issued with the claim that they would present the holder with a share in every new DAC. Then there came AGS with exactly the same claim and by that diverting value from PTS. Now if you use only the Feb 28th snapshot for every new chain that the value of AGS and PTS has again been further diverted, this time to the snapshot for BTS.
I think his evokes the danger of appearing to raise money for a product to raise money for a product to raise money etc..
I am unsure how to feel about this. How many more fundraising Shares etc will be issued?
Are PTS and AGS the final two for every new DAC or will there be more?
Of course PTS and AGS still offer a share in every new DAC but given that Bitshares X is arguably your most high profile project at the moment, I think the incentive to keep these two will be very low after one has BTS.
-
I think it'll be really beneficial to have a graphical explanation for the relationship between all these chains and the share allocation model, just so the public can easily understand it.
Currently the information is scattered in several posts thus cause some confusion to the concerning people, let alone those who's never heard of the project but can be potentionally converted into investors/participants.
-
I do not think this is a good idea.
First there were PTS which were issued with the claim that they would present the holder with a share in every new DAC. Then there came AGS with exactly the same claim and by that diverting value from PTS. Now if you use only the Feb 28th snapshot for every new chain that the value of AGS and PTS has again been further diverted, this time to the snapshot for BTS.
I think his evokes the danger of appearing to raise money for a product to raise money for a product to raise money etc..
I am unsure how to feel about this. How many more fundraising Shares etc will be issued?
Are PTS and AGS the final two for every new DAC or will there be more?
Of course PTS and AGS still offer a share in every new DAC but given that Bitshares X is arguably your most high profile project at the moment, I think the incentive to keep these two will be very low after one has BTS.
As I understand it, the value of holding PTS/AGS is transfered into holding BTS rather than being diverted by it (assuming the owner does not sell his BTS before the descendant chains are created).
The only significant change compared to the previous announcement is that the Feb 28th snapshot will be used regardless if the XT chain will be reset or not.
-
I do not think this is a good idea.
First there were PTS which were issued with the claim that they would present the holder with a share in every new DAC. Then there came AGS with exactly the same claim and by that diverting value from PTS. Now if you use only the Feb 28th snapshot for every new chain that the value of AGS and PTS has again been further diverted, this time to the snapshot for BTS.
I think his evokes the danger of appearing to raise money for a product to raise money for a product to raise money etc..
I am unsure how to feel about this. How many more fundraising Shares etc will be issued?
Are PTS and AGS the final two for every new DAC or will there be more?
Of course PTS and AGS still offer a share in every new DAC but given that Bitshares X is arguably your most high profile project at the moment, I think the incentive to keep these two will be very low after one has BTS.
The proposed scheme of all new Bitshares branched off Bitshares XT actually means raising less new funds: AGS will become less attractive to investors as part of its value is transferred to Bitshares XT. I guess III didn't expect to raise this much so quickly (3 million $ in 6 weeks) and that amount should be enough to pay for developing all proposed new DACs.
Also now you will have the possibility of choosing specifically where you want to invest: BTS or the other DACs.
-
If XT failed, new chain will guarentee the right of BTS holder.
So the backing BTS, the BTS, get same value in the new chain. But bitUSD get zero value.
Obvious, most value is give to backing BTS(all debt for bitUSD is cancel), BTS is next, and bitUSD get nothing.
Expected at this, Will you sell BTS for bitUSD? what's the price? If somebody buy bts from you with real USD, waht's your price?
And what's the short price will you accept?
my offer is sell 1BTS at price 10000bitUSD/bts. but if it's real USD, I can accept price 200usd/bts.
my short price is 10bitUSD/bts
here is my question:
1. In the obvious unfairness is expected, the market can reach a consensus?
2. can bitUSD follow the price of real USD?
按照最新分配规则，如果XT失败，创建新的链会保证XT上BTS持有者的权益，按XT 上的BTS持有分配。
那么XT上作为担保的BTS以及直接持有的BTS，在新链上的价值是相同的。而XT上的bitUSD在新链上没任何价值。
这样的分配方式很明显，最大利益倾向作为抵押的BTS(因为它对应的债务全抵消了），其次是持有的BTS，而bitUSD最倒霉。
在这样的预期下，你会选择卖BTS换 bitUSD吗？你会在什么价位卖BTS？如果有人拿美金买BTS，你又会出什么价位呢？
又选择在什么价位发行bitUSD呢？
我愿意在10000bitUSD/bts 卖1个BTS，而200美金/bts的价格，我就愿意卖一部分BTS。
而仅仅在 10bitUSD/bts 价位发行bitUSD。
1. 在明显的不公平预期下，市场能达成共识吗？
2. 在这样的预期下，XT上的bitUSD能和美金挂钩吗？
-
In my opnion. New chain shold honor not only the BTS holder, but also the bit Access holder.
Depend this, XT is what we want, maybe It can follow the real USD.
So my choice is clone the total block chain, include BTS and bitAccess and short position.
我认为分配方式除了保证XT 上BTS的权益外，同样应该保证bitUSD权益，只有这样，XT才有意义。
把整个XT的链完全克隆过去是不是更合适呢？
-
In my opnion. New chain shold honor not only the BTS holder, but also the bit Access holder.
Depend this, XT is what we want, maybe It can follow the real USD.
So my choice is clone the total block chain, include BTS and bitAccess and short position.
我认为分配方式除了保证XT 上BTS的权益外，同样应该保证bitUSD权益，只有这样，XT才有意义。
把整个XT的链完全克隆过去是不是更合适呢？
Holding BitAssets involves no risk, holding BTS does. Shorting a BitAsset means double risk (including that one the BitAsset holder does not have anymore).
Risk should be rewarded.
-
Holding BitAssets involves no risk only If it's a stable version.
for me holding BitAssets is a huge risk. :o
In my opnion. New chain shold honor not only the BTS holder, but also the bit Access holder.
Depend this, XT is what we want, maybe It can follow the real USD.
So my choice is clone the total block chain, include BTS and bitAccess and short position.
我认为分配方式除了保证XT 上BTS的权益外，同样应该保证bitUSD权益，只有这样，XT才有意义。
把整个XT的链完全克隆过去是不是更合适呢？
Holding BitAssets involves no risk, holding BTS does. Shorting a BitAsset means double risk (including that one the BitAsset holder does not have anymore).
Risk should be rewarded.
-
Additionaly, if one planned on investing in AGS after Feb 28th with the intention of getting a share in later chains, then one is now stuck with far fewer BTS due to the inevitable increased funding. I think this decision arose far too close to the final snapshot date.
Also does this decision imply, that if one wanted to enter ANY of the future chains on Bitshares X (through shares) then one needs to be part of the Feb 28 snapshot? Because that would without a doubt sharply decrease the value of PTS and AGS, seeing as Bitshares X is arguably your most high profile project at the moment.
But again: Will PTS and AGS remain as the only fundraising shares or are there more to come? I think this is absolut vital information for any investor.
-
I do not think this is a good idea.
First there were PTS which were issued with the claim that they would present the holder with a share in every new DAC. Then there came AGS with exactly the same claim and by that diverting value from PTS. Now if you use only the Feb 28th snapshot for every new chain that the value of AGS and PTS has again been further diverted, this time to the snapshot for BTS.
I think his evokes the danger of appearing to raise money for a product to raise money for a product to raise money etc..
I am unsure how to feel about this. How many more fundraising Shares etc will be issued?
Are PTS and AGS the final two for every new DAC or will there be more?
Of course PTS and AGS still offer a share in every new DAC but given that Bitshares X is arguably your most high profile project at the moment, I think the incentive to keep these two will be very low after one has BTS.
The proposed scheme of all new Bitshares branched off Bitshares XT actually means raising less new funds: AGS will become less attractive to investors as part of its value is transferred to Bitshares XT. I guess III didn't expect to raise this much so quickly (3 million $ in 6 weeks) and that amount should be enough to pay for developing all proposed new DACs.
Also now you will have the possibility of choosing specifically where you want to invest: BTS or the other DACs.
An exchange cannot trade freely and grow robustly if every branch and upgrade resets ownership.
We simply removed that worry.
-
You very very much did not remove worry, you guys appear to have further complicated an already complicated situation that was very simple until you opted to change the deal after it was struck and the agreed upon price paid.
I feel like I keep saying this. STOP TALKING UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO AND THEN DONT CHANGE IT
This is actively starting to piss me off and I have a VERY long time horizon, I really really really hope you can not change the deal any further. When you change the deal it demonstrates that the deal is bullshit, always was subject to the momentary whims of the asymmetrically advantaged one of two parties making the deal. You've also shown that Invictus is not afraid to cause actual damage to their prior investors because again, you felt like it's a good idea at the time.
I think it's pretty apparent that I'm not a troll so why do I feel this way? Am I an outlier or am I just an early complainer? History is a good guide, best of luck.
-
Less
(http://s23.postimg.org/tq8sy0mcb/Civilized.png]http://s23.postimg.org/tq8sy0mcb/Civilized.png)
and more
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/19824822.jpg)
-
The way I see it all decisions so far have increased value of PTS/AGS holders
When AGS was introduced to "divert value" they actually made PTS give 5x more BTS
When it was said that BTS snapshots will be used instead of AGS/PTS for BTS derivatives it means you will get more of each subsequent chain since your PTS/AGS share % would be lower but your BTS share % will only be lower if you sell your BTS X
-
Well maybe "divert" was the wrong word, what I mean is that it is a shifting of value from one project to the next with the promise of the next project only to realize that it's objective is to create value for the next project and so on..
Therefore I want to know: Will PTS and AGS remain as the only fundraising shares or are there more to come?
This is a vital information for any investor.
-
Well maybe "divert" was the wrong word, what I mean is that it is simply a shifting of value from one project to the next with the promise of the next project only to realize that it's objective is to create value for the next project and so on..
Therefore I want to know: Will PTS and AGS remain as the only fundraising shares or are there more to come?
PTS and AGS have committed 20% of the future of everything we do. Individual DACs may have fundraisers for some part of the remaining 80% but obviously we do not want to raise money unnecessarily. So when you plan your investment, anything MORE than 20% is a huge bonus. Also, we cannot make any allocation that is not forum tested & market approved or someone (Like Toast) will simply fork it.
As we have stated in the past, contributions to the AGS fund are donations and actual allocations in block chains will be based upon what ever the market decides to do. You have never had to trust us on this because we cannot change any rules or do anything that the market will not accept (that would be centralized). Instead, we are merely recommending that future BitShares X chains honor prior BitShares X chains as being in the best interest of both old and new chains. Obviously someone like Toast is free to ignore that recommendation and decide to honor AGS/PTS 50/50 or AGS/PTS with 20% and the previous version with 80%. What ever the individual who launches the chain feels is most likely to win over the user base and not piss people off.
-
Can someone confirm this?:
60 days of funding for the snapshot. Jan+Feb+1 keyhotee
AGS created 10000*60=600k
2 million/600k=3.3333 BTS per AGS
-
Can someone confirm this?:
60 days of funding for the snapshot. Jan+Feb+1 keyhotee
AGS created 5000*60=300k
2 million/300k=6.66666 BTS per AGS
That looks right to me.
-
Can someone confirm this?:
60 days of funding for the snapshot. Jan+Feb+1 keyhotee
AGS created 5000*60=300k
2 million/300k=6.66666 BTS per AGS
That looks right to me.
3.33_.
10,000 AGS per day, 5000 from BTC, 5000 from PTS.
-
Thanks
-
Can someone confirm this?:
60 days of funding for the snapshot. Jan+Feb+1 keyhotee
AGS created 5000*60=300k
2 million/300k=6.66666 BTS per AGS
That looks right to me.
3.33_.
10,000 AGS per day, 5000 from BTC, 5000 from PTS.
Err... yes, this :)
-
You have never had to trust us on this because we cannot change any rules or do anything that the market will not accept (that would be centralized).
That's just not true, we had to trust you when you said that PTS were the only way to acquire BTS without mining them or buying them on a market. You promised that, we trusted you, you changed your mind and changed the deal.
The way I see it all decisions so far have increased value of PTS/AGS holders
In the long term this might be true, but I think that the decision to allocate 100% to premine instead of 10% to premine and 90% to equitable (as percieved by the market) mining actually will make it much more difficult to bootstrap a larger community than the original plan suggested. In the short and medium term AGS had a devastating impact on PTS both in terms of price and in terms of broad investment appeal.
Now the deal is changing again, PTS are having most of their medium-term value sucked out since most of the new chains will apparently be derived from BTS, a bad solution to a problem only caused because you introduced a second investment vehicle and therefore created two standards of investors which then required consolidation.
Seriously how do you not see that you are shotgunning your credibility in the foot over and over again with these repeated changes on deals already made.
-
I have to agree with Adam here. This is definitely an issue.
Also this announcement with the change of such an important decision has come out far too close to the snapshot. Why did you plan such an important thing not ahead, or the other way, why the rush if things are not completely planned?
-
I am happy with that decision because I think it add clarity.
But I do think it can become a problem if you keep changing the rule of the game. You should make some kind of declaration on what rules are set in stone and which one are susceptible to change so the investors have visibility.
-
I am happy with that decision because I think it add clarity.
But I do think it can become a problem if you keep changing the rule of the game. You should make some kind of declaration on what rules are set in stone and which one are susceptible to change so the investors have visibility.
I will say that we could do a better job of communicating these things in a single place...
Our commitments were 'set in stone':
1) Give 2 week notice of snapshots
2) Give PTS holders at least 10%
3) Give AGS holders at least 10%
4) Give PTS and AGS holders 50/50 of first BitShares X chain
On these four points nothing has changed and in fact we gave a month notice of Feb 28th, we are allocating 50/50 for AGS and PTS holders and we just announced that these AGS and PTS holders should be getting 50/50 of every BitShares X chain via inheritance rather than just the first. This is a Big boon that had we considered this earlier we could have raised more money.
Further more it was no secret that as soon as BitShares X was near completion and ready for a snapshot that we would do so. In fact, since early January everyone has been aware that we would be launching a minimal viable product that would be updated with new features over time.
But I suppose it doesn't matter who is right or wrong here as that is not the point. The point is that there are people out there who were expecting something else (rightly or wrongly) and things appear to have changed. It really seems like those planning on a 200 day investment strategy who expected all 200 days to count toward some BitShares X chains (but apparently knew they would be missing at least the first chain) may feel they got a raw deal. On the other hand they haven't missed any opportunities, they just have to buy it from BitShares X holders rather than giving us the money while we continue to debase PTS and AGS holders mining and raising funds.
If there is one thing I would rather be known for it would be for maximizing value received by existing PTS and AGS holders and thus rewarding them for their faith in what we are doing. What BitShares X will do is peal off BitShares X investment money and create new opportunities for those who want to invest in all of our other ideas at a bargain without having to pay prices near with BitShares X is worth. Our other ideas are less developed and thus risker so those investing in those ideas were not being served well by having to compete with BitShares X investors.
We try our best. Speak our thoughts. And honestly try to look out for everyone.
Things that are subject to change:
1) Technical Implementation Details and Feature Sets - these must be flexible to adapt to changing conditions as we are learning as we go.
2) Any allocation above 10/10 AGS and PTS for any future chains.
3) The market may choose a different allocation strategy than we recommend... so this is subject to forces beyond our control. For example, had we simply declared that upon further review 80% of everything other than the first BitShares X chain would belong to Invictus, I doubt the market would approve or follow such recommendations. So consider every allocation strategy we recommend to be ultimately subject to the market. This means that someone could launch a copy of BitShares X that honors 10% PTS and mines the rest according to the original schedule.... So in a sense you are investing in the market consensus and NOT in us. We merely make recommendations as to what we believe will be the most effective strategies for those wishing to launch new DACs. After all the true value of a DAC does not come from the source, but from the network effect of users.
-
60 day a 10.000 ags shares = 600.000 ags and 10.000 shares for keyhotee = 610.000 ags for the funding period
but how do you allocate the last 1.390.000 ags ?
1. 1.390.000 / 60 =23.166,67 ags more each day
or
2. 1.390.000 / 600.000 = 2,32 ags more each ags
only allocaten 1. will be a fair allocation, because it will honor the different days. or can i just throw some btc in the last day and get 2.32 ags each ags i get for my day?
on the longrun, you should talk this decisions with your community. you change a lot and the most people don't like change. the only solution i could think about. first talk and take the tought of the community and then you can change.
-
You'll notice that you're describing the change from the last deal to the most recent deal, but that's not anywhere close to the first deal which did not conceptualize of AGS. Seems like it might be a worthwhile endeavor to have someone not you actually map the social contract and how it has changed over time becaues this is very confusing
Furthermore, you did not address my point.
You have never had to trust us on this because we cannot change any rules or do anything that the market will not accept (that would be centralized).
That's just not true, we had to trust you when you said that PTS were the only way to acquire BTS without mining them or buying them on a market. You promised that, we trusted you, you changed your mind and changed the deal.
and finally, I've suggested before and I now think its actively hurting that all of these communications are conducted via a forum and a newsletter, you guys REALLY need to start an accessible public company blog that is a centralized point (gasp) where information can be shared. It's fine to generate everything decentrally but this is a giant mess. The people who respond on the forums are the ones who still trust you enough to care to complain, and before you say anyone who doesn't want to support the project for the long term should sell their shares just understand that these are all people who believed in the project enough to jump through the hoops of getting vested in the first place who you are literally chasing away with your poor corporate practices and cavalier attitude about expectation management.
You think launching solves your problem but it's the beginning, you need to get your house in order and fix communication BEFORE you launch.
-
In the short and medium term AGS had a devastating impact on PTS both in terms of price and in terms of broad investment appeal.
I agree w/ Adam on this point. I've purchased more PTS than AGS because I like the liquidity part of PTS. I figured this would cost me the 3.33x benefit for just ONE bitshares X chain. But now that this cost applies to ALL derived chains (which could amount to many more than future DACs combined), I feel I've paid way too much.
-
In the short and medium term AGS had a devastating impact on PTS both in terms of price and in terms of broad investment appeal.
I agree w/ Adam on this point. I've purchased more PTS than AGS because I like the liquidity part of PTS. I figured this would cost me the 3.33x benefit for just ONE bitshares X chain. But now that this cost applies to ALL derived chains (which could amount to many more than future DACs combined), I feel I've paid way too much.
I really don't want to argue about what is best because this post was all about recommendations based upon my analysis of the market. It seems like an alternative that someone could choose is to honor AGS and PTS with 20% and BTS XT with 80% and it would still honor the entire social contract without changing any expectations.
So rather than me proposing solutions (Honoring BTS rather than AGS and PTS for BitShares X chains)... I would like to hear from the community how they would recommend resolving the following issue:
Every new BitShares X chain which adds an upgrade (Interest, etc) will impact prior chains. Why would someone with money invest it in BitShares XT if they expect a future enhancement that would compete and potentially undermine their initial investment? Everyone will stick with PTS until there was a clear winner which would really slow the adoption of BitShares XT.
This recommendation increased the value you will receive from the PTS you have purchased as it will not be debased after the 28th. What you are really saying is that AGS has been undervalued and you would have rather purchased AGS than PTS because this recommendation would benefit AGS holders more than PTS holders. In effect, this appears to be a case of missed opportunity rather than a case of devaluing PTS.
It would seem (based on AGS donations) that this change has dramatically increased the valuation of AGS vs PTS without actually devaluing PTS in real terms.
-
Stop posting "just your thoughts and analysis" as a stickyd post that says Bitshares X Product Roadmap. If what you say is true that's bullshit, this is a first proposal that you are willing to backtrack on given enough pushback, but that's not articulated in the actual message you're sending out which is "This is the roadmap" and a roadmap doesn't change often, does it?
I totally agree, stop suggesting solutions to problems you create. Also stop creating them. Just work on Bitshares, talk about a plan internally, put out FEELER posts that do not say things like PRODUCT ROADMAP but rather say "Idea for <WHATEVER>" in a forum not intended for news or announcements but discussion of IDEAS.
Your fixation on short term value is really disappointing, for someone as logical as you are I''m shocked at how you don't see your rules based system breaking down because you aren't following the rules or letting anyone else do so either.
-
Consider I3 has made it clear they will not interfere with any attempts to make "better" chains I don't see why everyone is so worried. Right now everyone is taking Dan's word too seriously and ignoring the actual value of PTS, which is the influence PTS holders collectively have on the space.
When someone starts working on a later fork they could easily set up two funding addresses for PTS and BTS and allocate the new shares according to what investors want. If PTS holders want their share they will make it clear.
-
I must sy that I am finding Bytemaster's posts more compelling than Adam's. I do not see a problem with what Bytemaster is proposing from my perspective as an investor in both PTS and AGS.
The caveat to this is that I am retired and have plenty of time to spend reading this Forum and keeping up with the twists and turns. That would be a problen to those who can only check in occasionally no doubt.
I spend a great deal of time reading the Forum because I liike to keep an eye on my ionvestment, and because I am fully in harmiony with III's decentalizing approach (I lost a great deal of money when MT. Gox's dollar account was seized because I was invested in an endeavor that did not take decentralization seriously)
-
Hi Adam,
From a noobs perspective I think you're overreacting a bit.
In this fast evolving crypto space, I'd rather see a company adapt and make changes, then just continue the lesser original plan. If the funding with PTS was simply just not enough, then AGS was necessary. Something could be said about how AGS devalued PTS in the short term, but it's to late to reverse. But the value of PTS to BTS and following DAC's hasn't got worse.
So far the decisions made by III seem logical.
-
Hi Adam,
From a noobs perspective I think you're overreacting a bit.
In this fast evolving crypto space, I'd rather see a company adapt and make changes, then just continue the lesser original plan. If the funding with PTS was simply just not enough, then AGS was necessary. Something could be said about how AGS devalued PTS in the short term, but it's to late to reverse. But the value of PTS to BTS and following DAC's hasn't got worse.
So far the decisions made by III seem logical.
+5% ( even though that has changed - it retains historical meaning as an affirmation)
-
Happy to be wrong.
-
This really comes down to one very basic philosophical dispute about the rights of non-owners vs owners of AGS and PTS combined with a bit of envy when one group watches another gain more at no expense to their own position.
Namely, every decision we have made benefited existing owners (by giving them a greater stake, increasing funding to back ideas, etc) but of course it came at a theoretical lost-opportunity for non existing owners.
All value comes from somewhere and there is only 100% of BTS to go around. So the question is how does one get a cut of that pie? Whether it is PTS or AGS or BTS you must buy it. The only difference is who you buy it from: power companies, Invictus, or previous owners of BTS. In effect, the opportunity is still there for everyone who wants to get in. The only thing that has changed by anything we have done is increase the value proposition for current owners and thus making it more expensive for those who come to the game later.
The early investors took a bigger risk than the later investors and it should be expected that as things grow and improve that the price of entry would go up.
So everyone who has a stake benefits from our decisions where as those who have passed on earlier opportunities missed out. It isn't like the initial allocation is the FINAL allocation for all time. PTS owners are not being diluted by the AGS owners, they were only promised 10% and are getting 50%... the people buying AGS just took a bigger risk than those owning PTS. And once again PTS owners are not being harmed by this recommendation... the value of their investment is just moving from one block-chain to a different block-chain as the plan was from the beginning. Furthermore, we offered early PTS investors an opportunity to switch deals (giving us their PTS in exchange for AGS...) and everyone has known since Jan 24th that AGS would have a more favorable ratio in the first chain and if we are honest, most expected us to launch the first 50/50 chain long before AGS and PTS hit parity in supply.
Had we kept with the reset to AGS/PTS recommendation then it would have harmed everyone (new and old investors alike). New investors would still have to buy in and the power company would continue to get a large cut... but current investors would be diluted (paying for the power company, extra capital flowing to Invictus). Likewise the uncertainty created by resetting every chain to AGS/PTS upon upgrade would have devalued the entire pie for everyone.
What I think is going on here is that people think that 1 AGS and 1 PTS should have parity in value and share supply and that is a logical error. Their values are almost entirely independent and changing over time relative to each other. If I had said that there would be 1 million AGS per day but that it would still be split 50/50 between PTS and AGS holders it would be very clear that we have created TWO (or 3) independent pools 50/25/25 and each pool as different rules for getting a cut. Mining, Donating and different inflation rates as well as different consequences of inflation (debasement, vs capital accumulation).
We have taken care of everyone who has put their money into PTS or AGS and that is our job and primary motivation behind everything we do.
-
This really comes down to one very basic philosophical dispute about the rights of non-owners vs owners of AGS and PTS combined with a bit of envy when one group watches another gain more at no expense to their own position.
Namely, every decision we have made benefited existing owners (by giving them a greater stake, increasing funding to back ideas, etc) but of course it came at a theoretical lost-opportunity for non existing owners.
All value comes from somewhere and there is only 100% of BTS to go around. So the question is how does one get a cut of that pie? Whether it is PTS or AGS or BTS you must buy it. The only difference is who you buy it from: power companies, Invictus, or previous owners of BTS. In effect, the opportunity is still there for everyone who wants to get in. The only thing that has changed by anything we have done is increase the value proposition for current owners and thus making it more expensive for those who come to the game later.
The early investors took a bigger risk than the later investors and it should be expected that as things grow and improve that the price of entry would go up.
So everyone who has a stake benefits from our decisions where as those who have passed on earlier opportunities missed out. It isn't like the initial allocation is the FINAL allocation for all time. PTS owners are not being diluted by the AGS owners, they were only promised 10% and are getting 50%... the people buying AGS just took a bigger risk than those owning PTS. And once again PTS owners are not being harmed by this recommendation... the value of their investment is just moving from one block-chain to a different block-chain as the plan was from the beginning. Furthermore, we offered early PTS investors an opportunity to switch deals (giving us their PTS in exchange for AGS...) and everyone has known since Jan 24th that AGS would have a more favorable ratio in the first chain and if we are honest, most expected us to launch the first 50/50 chain long before AGS and PTS hit parity in supply.
Had we kept with the reset to AGS/PTS recommendation then it would have harmed everyone (new and old investors alike). New investors would still have to buy in and the power company would continue to get a large cut... but current investors would be diluted (paying for the power company, extra capital flowing to Invictus). Likewise the uncertainty created by resetting every chain to AGS/PTS upon upgrade would have devalued the entire pie for everyone.
What I think is going on here is that people think that 1 AGS and 1 PTS should have parity in value and share supply and that is a logical error. Their values are almost entirely independent and changing over time relative to each other. If I had said that there would be 1 million AGS per day but that it would still be split 50/50 between PTS and AGS holders it would be very clear that we have created TWO (or 3) independent pools 50/25/25 and each pool as different rules for getting a cut. Mining, Donating and different inflation rates as well as different consequences of inflation (debasement, vs capital accumulation).
We have taken care of everyone who has put their money into PTS or AGS and that is our job and primary motivation behind everything we do.
+5%
-
Once again the whole issue boils down to "who gains" and "who loses out".
Who gains?
- AGS holders January and February (they were promised at least 1 BTS per AGS, now they get 3 1/3)
Who loses?
- Whales who need significantly more than a fortnight to spread their AGS donations w/out affecting the price too much.
- Invictus because AGS for March and beyond lose value which will reduce funding.
PTS holders are not affected unless they sell off their BTS holdings. Anybody else standing at the sidelines watching can still get in easily. The price for acquiring BTS via AGS donation has gone up from 2$ per BTS to 3$ but I don't think anybody here considers that expensive.
-
Whales who need significantly more than a fortnight to spread their AGS donations w/out affecting the price too much.
If I were a Whale, I would simple dump in 80 all at once at the start of the day and let everyone else move out of my way on to another day.
But you are right, this could hurt Invictus fund raising starting in 2 weeks... On the other hand it brings money forward in time.
-
Whales who need significantly more than a fortnight to spread their AGS donations w/out affecting the price too much.
If I were a Whale, I would simple dump in 80 all at once at the start of the day and let everyone else move out of my way on to another day.
[…]
I meant a whale, not a dolphin :)
What would you do if your budget were 2000 BTC, you had planned on donating 10 a day (and done so since New Year) and are now stuck with 1400 BTC left?
edit: Don't get it wrong, it's not me I'm talking about. I feel more like a herring.
-
Whales who need significantly more than a fortnight to spread their AGS donations w/out affecting the price too much.
If I were a Whale, I would simple dump in 80 all at once at the start of the day and let everyone else move out of my way on to another day.
[…]
I meant a whale, not a dolphin :)
What would you do if your budget were 2000 BTC, you had planned on donating 10 a day (and done so since New Year) and are now stuck with 1400 BTC left?
May I suggest/comment... finish off that investment by 28th and distribute it over BTS holders (at genesis block chain) as the overcome of AGS/PTS is already pre-agreed to initial promised 10% for Future DACs (anything greater than that is only a bonus from invictus intentions over code dev and invictus value share)... and as because the main incentive for AGS is either re-investing already owned PTS or paying with BTC, then for the BTC investors after 28th, to invest in AGS or BTS would value the same entry point as it is now for AGS... meaning it will equally (my point of view) stand new investors to BTS or to already promised AGS 10% DACs honors. Some may not see this as a differentiated value, but it might become strong with future DACs announcements.
I see Adam's point of view (badly I must say.. I might be reading something not right.. or not).
I clearly see bytemaster point... but... I must say... HE HAS A DAM PATIENCE FOR CUSTOMERS!!! INVESTORS!!! MAN!!!!! I would not.... but I see the point on protecting and working out in a way to clear out others discussions.. over forums.. but is then when I lean a bit over the Adam's way.. it's complicated to follow all this posts... there are SO many! And I feel the pain in reading all off them just to keep pace. And... what I feel Adam is protesting about is.. that current investors should be given a bit more "relaxed announcements" for what is going around... and this could be for example.. keyhotee newsletter's, via the software email functionality... (will help the software to get distributed). Any other way may apply equally or better... It's just a pain to loose time finding if we are aligned with the investment we already did... I know our social world is becoming like that... more and more... but.. can invictus innovate here too? like that are doing.. all OVER the software ideas =P
I AM NO NOOB.. but either no expert.. I do like commenting and sharing ideas though..
Cheers...
Life is short! +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
If our goal is to see the value of BitShares XT to grow then we need to future-proof peoples investment in BitShares XT after launch against being devalued by one of our planned upgrades or the flood of variants with different assets. For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch. Thus the primary vehicle for investing in future BitShares X chains will be to own BitShares XT.... likewise, chains that are variants of BitShares XI or XV should honor their parent with 100% stake.
Bytemaster, would you please clarify how/when the snapshot of BitShares XT will occur. It is my understanding that previous to this announcement, I could import the private key from the wallet from which I donated Bitcoin to AngelShares into the BitShares client sometime after launch to claim my Bitshares. I presume this is still true. However, I am not clear on when I have to do this in order to ensure that I am ready for the next snapshot - that of BitShares XT. What if I (or another investor) is away on vacation around the February 28th launch of Bitshares? I'm not terribly tech-savvy and sometimes I struggle to follow all this. Now that we have an additional action to take before the snapshot that will define our stake in future BitShares chains, I am concerned I could somehow miss it...
-
No actions to take on your part aside from making sure your PTS is in your local wallet (not on an exchange) prior to Feb 28th. Once the snapshot is taken we will begin preparing for release. After we have released the code you will be able to import your wallet at any time and you will be good to go.
No extra steps.
-
Just wondering what time and what timezone on Feb 28th you will take the snapshot ?
No actions to take on your part aside from making sure your PTS is in your local wallet (not on an exchange) prior to Feb 28th. Once the snapshot is taken we will begin preparing for release. After we have released the code you will be able to import your wallet at any time and you will be good to go.
No extra steps.
-
Last block on 2/28.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Just wondering what time and what timezone on Feb 28th you will take the snapshot ?
No actions to take on your part aside from making sure your PTS is in your local wallet (not on an exchange) prior to Feb 28th. Once the snapshot is taken we will begin preparing for release. After we have released the code you will be able to import your wallet at any time and you will be good to go.
No extra steps.
All times on this forum are by default GMT/UTC
-
No actions to take on your part aside from making sure your PTS is in your local wallet (not on an exchange) prior to Feb 28th. Once the snapshot is taken we will begin preparing for release. After we have released the code you will be able to import your wallet at any time and you will be good to go.
No extra steps.
Thanks bytemaster, but I'm still confused. You say that "we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch". It seems to me that there are two snapshots, one of AngelShares/ProtoShares around Feb. 28 in order to claim BitShares XT, then another of BitShares XT around launch time in order to claim my stake in future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X. Is this the case, or is there only one snapshot, that of AngelShares/ProtoShares on Feb. 28, which the distribution of both BitShares XT and all future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X will be based?
If the latter is true, than I understand that there are no extra steps. If the former is true, then does this not mean that I have to ensure that I have downloaded the bitshares client and claimed my bitshares (from AngelShares) before this snapshot of BitShares XT is taken in order to claim my stake in future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X?
-
Last block on 2/28.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
At what time zone? My local time Zone is est and is 12 hours behind Beijing time
-
Last block on 2/28.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
At what time zone? My local time Zone is est and is 12 hours behind Beijing time
Everything we do is GMT.
-
No actions to take on your part aside from making sure your PTS is in your local wallet (not on an exchange) prior to Feb 28th. Once the snapshot is taken we will begin preparing for release. After we have released the code you will be able to import your wallet at any time and you will be good to go.
No extra steps.
Thanks bytemaster, but I'm still confused. You say that "we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch". It seems to me that there are two snapshots, one of AngelShares/ProtoShares around Feb. 28 in order to claim BitShares XT, then another of BitShares XT around launch time in order to claim my stake in future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X. Is this the case, or is there only one snapshot, that of AngelShares/ProtoShares on Feb. 28, which the distribution of both BitShares XT and all future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X will be based?
If the latter is true, than I understand that there are no extra steps. If the former is true, then does this not mean that I have to ensure that I have downloaded the bitshares client and claimed my bitshares (from AngelShares) before this snapshot of BitShares XT is taken in order to claim my stake in future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X?
There will be two snapshots.
The first one will copy all AGS/PTS addresses with a positive balance at that time and assign them their BTS balances. This copy will be in the first block (genesis block) of the BTS chain.
The second snapshot will then copy all BTS addresses with a positive balance at a later time to incorporate them in the genesis block of the new chain.
--> If you never touch your BTS before the second snapshot they will still be sitting in the genesis block of the first BTS chain. This balance will of course be copied in the second snapshot.
-
No actions to take on your part aside from making sure your PTS is in your local wallet (not on an exchange) prior to Feb 28th. Once the snapshot is taken we will begin preparing for release. After we have released the code you will be able to import your wallet at any time and you will be good to go.
No extra steps.
Thanks bytemaster, but I'm still confused. You say that "we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch". It seems to me that there are two snapshots, one of AngelShares/ProtoShares around Feb. 28 in order to claim BitShares XT, then another of BitShares XT around launch time in order to claim my stake in future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X. Is this the case, or is there only one snapshot, that of AngelShares/ProtoShares on Feb. 28, which the distribution of both BitShares XT and all future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X will be based?
If the latter is true, than I understand that there are no extra steps. If the former is true, then does this not mean that I have to ensure that I have downloaded the bitshares client and claimed my bitshares (from AngelShares) before this snapshot of BitShares XT is taken in order to claim my stake in future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X?
There will be two snapshots.
The first one will copy all AGS/PTS addresses with a positive balance at that time and assign them their BTS balances. This copy will be in the first block (genesis block) of the BTS chain.
The second snapshot will then copy all BTS addresses with a positive balance at a later time to incorporate them in the genesis block of the new chain.
--> If you never touch your BTS before the second snapshot they will still be sitting in the genesis block of the first BTS chain. This balance will of course be copied in the second snapshot.
Thanks Marcus, I had assumed that I would need to "claim" my BTS within the BitShares Client in order to associate a wallet/private key to them before the second snapshot in order to ensure that my initial investment in AngelShares could be linked not only to the first, but also to all subsequent BitShares chains. From your breakdown I gather that this is not the case. My stake in future BitShares chains is somehow tied to me through the genesis block of the first BTS chain (which itself is based on a snapshot of AngelShares/ProtoShares) even without me accessing my BitShares before the Second snapshot. Correct?
-
No actions to take on your part aside from making sure your PTS is in your local wallet (not on an exchange) prior to Feb 28th. Once the snapshot is taken we will begin preparing for release. After we have released the code you will be able to import your wallet at any time and you will be good to go.
No extra steps.
Thanks bytemaster, but I'm still confused. You say that "we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch". It seems to me that there are two snapshots, one of AngelShares/ProtoShares around Feb. 28 in order to claim BitShares XT, then another of BitShares XT around launch time in order to claim my stake in future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X. Is this the case, or is there only one snapshot, that of AngelShares/ProtoShares on Feb. 28, which the distribution of both BitShares XT and all future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X will be based?
If the latter is true, than I understand that there are no extra steps. If the former is true, then does this not mean that I have to ensure that I have downloaded the bitshares client and claimed my bitshares (from AngelShares) before this snapshot of BitShares XT is taken in order to claim my stake in future chains based on the concept behind BitShares X?
There will be two snapshots.
The first one will copy all AGS/PTS addresses with a positive balance at that time and assign them their BTS balances. This copy will be in the first block (genesis block) of the BTS chain.
The second snapshot will then copy all BTS addresses with a positive balance at a later time to incorporate them in the genesis block of the new chain.
--> If you never touch your BTS before the second snapshot they will still be sitting in the genesis block of the first BTS chain. This balance will of course be copied in the second snapshot.
Forgive my ignorance... will this PTS addresses be ALL over the PTS blockchain...? or just some selected?
Examples... exchanges will have their addresses values... converted to BTS?
-
Thanks Marcus, I had assumed that I would need to "claim" my BTS within the BitShares Client in order to associate a wallet/private key to them before the second snapshot in order to ensure that my initial investment in AngelShares could be linked not only to the first, but also to all subsequent BitShares chains. From your breakdown I gather that this is not the case. My stake in future BitShares chains is somehow tied to me through the genesis block of the first BTS chain (which itself is based on a snapshot of AngelShares/ProtoShares) even without me accessing my BitShares before the Second snapshot. Correct?
Correct. No need to claim anything. Every subsequent snapshot will copy your very same original (public) address - as long as you do not transfer your BTS to a different address beforehand that is. You will already have a wallet.dat/private key associated to the new BTS - the same one as for your AGS. Same public address means same private key unlocks them.
-
Forgive my ignorance... will this PTS addresses be ALL over the PTS blockchain...? or just some selected?
Examples... exchanges will have their addresses values... converted to BTS?
ALL PTS addresses holding a positive balance at the time of snapshot will be considered.
Addresses belonging to exchanges also. This is why it is so important that you do not have your PTS in an exchange at the time of the snapshot but in your own wallet. If you did, then the exchange would receive your BTS and not you.
-
Thanks Marcus, I had assumed that I would need to "claim" my BTS within the BitShares Client in order to associate a wallet/private key to them before the second snapshot in order to ensure that my initial investment in AngelShares could be linked not only to the first, but also to all subsequent BitShares chains. From your breakdown I gather that this is not the case. My stake in future BitShares chains is somehow tied to me through the genesis block of the first BTS chain (which itself is based on a snapshot of AngelShares/ProtoShares) even without me accessing my BitShares before the Second snapshot. Correct?
Correct. No need to claim anything. Every subsequent snapshot will copy your very same original (public) address - as long as you do not transfer your BTS to a different address beforehand that is. You will already have a wallet.dat/private key associated to the new BTS - the same one as for your AGS. Same public address means same private key unlocks them.
I understand now, thank you Markus.
-
It seems that the market loves the decision you made! :)
-
It seems that the market loves the decision you made! :)
indeed amazing :)
http://coinmarketcap.com/volume.html#pts
24h trades #2 :)
edit: and over 100 BTC to AGS ... good day
-
For someone coming late to the party and only really learning more about bitshares today with the protoshares price increase. What is the best way to get bitshares? Buying up protoshares or donating to this AGS think I keep hearing about? Obviously this is to maximise the amount of bitshares I get.
Thanks for any help.
-
For someone coming late to the party and only really learning more about bitshares today with the protoshares price increase. What is the best way to get bitshares? Buying up protoshares or donating to this AGS think I keep hearing about? Obviously this is to maximise the amount of bitshares I get.
Thanks for any help.
AGS = 3.33 bts
PTS = 1.33 bts
-
http://coinmarketcap.com/volume.html#pts
Wow. So much PTS/CNY action!
-
When you guys Officially come out with BTS.
Make sure there's a Mac Wallet.
PLEASE consider the Mac users!!!
(I'm still unable to claim any MMC from my PTS wallet.dat in a working Mac Memorycoin wallet. :'(
Thanks.
-
When you guys Officially come out with BTS.
Make sure there's a Mac Wallet.
PLEASE consider the Mac users!!!
(I'm still unable to claim any MMC from my PTS wallet.dat in a working Mac Memorycoin wallet. :'(
Thanks.
+5%
-
Hi Adam,
From a noobs perspective I think you're overreacting a bit.
In this fast evolving crypto space, I'd rather see a company adapt and make changes, then just continue the lesser original plan. If the funding with PTS was simply just not enough, then AGS was necessary. Something could be said about how AGS devalued PTS in the short term, but it's to late to reverse. But the value of PTS to BTS and following DAC's hasn't got worse.
So far the decisions made by III seem logical.
I'm going to give this a +5% too.
I think we need to really break this down to the bare bones and keep it simple: This, is bitcoin2.0;
One has to apply this mindset to investments in PTS/AGS/BTSX, et. al.... and compare how its holding against BTC. A few months back, I invested half the BTC I owned into the 3I ecosystem; initially got in through mining PTS and then when the coyote pool shut down, buying on the exchanges; eventually converting to AGS (through selling PTS for BTC on an exchange and finally donating BTC for AGS).
Here's where things 'clicked' for me: From that snapshot, the half of my BTC I let ride - witnessed a 40+% decline; meanwhile, the half invested in PTS, ....then AGS (..and soon to be BTS-X...) has appreciated 12%. Daniel has mentioned a few times of "thinking in terms of buckets of value" and I really like that perspective. Long story short, I've experienced much better gains through diversifying my investment portfolio [of cryptocurrencies] by reallocating the 'bucket of value' from BTC to AGS; and that - makes me a happy investor.
I don't believe this is an instance of 3I, or anyone else, trying to influence the market for short-term returns; or as Adam stated, "fixation on short term value". I believe this is market feedback to a system that's starting to wake up and begin breathing. This has so far proven to be a great example of rapid iterations of building minimum viable products, that are operating favorably according to feedback. Think: Lean Startup - that's the iterative product development process 3I is following, whether consciously or not. I've been extremely impressed with each of the pivots made in order to maintain and excel value growth.
TL;DR
Keep up the good work, 3I - you guys are working hard and its really starting to show, IMHO - through market feedback and hard data.
-Brian
-
Many people are inquiring about the snapshot of the PTS blockchain. (For the BTS genesis block).
I wonder if someone might briefly clarify:
Will it occur on February 28th at 12am GMT? (meaning the beginning of the day on the 28th GMT)
Or Will it occur on March 1st at 12am GMT? (Meaning the end of the day on the 28th GMT)
Or Will it be a snapshot of the final block of the PTS blockchain on the 28th(GMT)?
Thank you in advance!
-
Many people are inquiring about the snapshot of the PTS blockchain. (For the BTS genesis block).
I wonder if someone might briefly clarify:
Will it occur on February 28th at 12am GMT? (meaning the beginning of the day on the 28th GMT)
Or Will it occur on March 1st at 12am GMT? (Meaning the end of the day on the 28th GMT)
Or Will it be a snapshot of the final block of the PTS blockchain on the 28th(GMT)?
Thank you in advance!
The snapshot will be of the final block on the 28th (GMT). It will probably be generated sometime the next day, but when it's generated exactly doesn't really matter. The crucial point is the last block included.
-
Many people are inquiring about the snapshot of the PTS blockchain. (For the BTS genesis block).
I wonder if someone might briefly clarify:
Will it occur on February 28th at 12am GMT? (meaning the beginning of the day on the 28th GMT)
Or Will it occur on March 1st at 12am GMT? (Meaning the end of the day on the 28th GMT)
Or Will it be a snapshot of the final block of the PTS blockchain on the 28th(GMT)?
Thank you in advance!
The last confirmed block in the GMT month of February.
-
this statement is very clear now. By the end of last day of February 2014 at GMT time zone.
Many people are inquiring about the snapshot of the PTS blockchain. (For the BTS genesis block).
I wonder if someone might briefly clarify:
Will it occur on February 28th at 12am GMT? (meaning the beginning of the day on the 28th GMT)
Or Will it occur on March 1st at 12am GMT? (Meaning the end of the day on the 28th GMT)
Or Will it be a snapshot of the final block of the PTS blockchain on the 28th(GMT)?
Thank you in advance!
The last confirmed block in the GMT month of February.
-
+5%
When you guys Officially come out with BTS.
Make sure there's a Mac Wallet.
PLEASE consider the Mac users!!!
(I'm still unable to claim any MMC from my PTS wallet.dat in a working Mac Memorycoin wallet. :'(
Thanks.
-
this statement is very clear now. By the end of last day of February 2014 at GMT time zone.
I'm still a bit confused - will it be the last block found in Feb (and confirmed later) or the last block confirmed in Feb?
-
I'm still a bit confused - will it be the last block found in Feb (and confirmed later) or the last block confirmed in Feb?
I'd go for 'found'
For the purpose of speculation: keep in mind that the timestamp in the blocks are 'chosen' by the miner and are allowed to be off several hour!!
-
I'm still a bit confused - will it be the last block found in Feb (and confirmed later) or the last block confirmed in Feb?
I'd go for 'found'
For the purpose of speculation: keep in mind that the timestamp in the blocks are 'chosen' by the miner and are allowed to be off several hour!!
But "found" status has no timestamp without a trusted source.
-
But "found" status has no timestamp without a trusted source.
protoshared getblock $(protoshared getblockhash $(protoshared getblockcount))
gives a timestamp to me:
{
"hash" : "000000142fe98fac3b7286ef3ccdbc0af41a0a225712e85d4d2ded7e5d298d64",
"confirmations" : 1,
"size" : 228,
"height" : 56799,
"version" : 2,
"merkleroot" : "13833e815f980d80acc0a7a35afae9de9160c14c59972ed0cb5480f8f5ee1deb",
"tx" : [
"13833e815f980d80acc0a7a35afae9de9160c14c59972ed0cb5480f8f5ee1deb"
],
"time" : 1393253631,
"nonce" : 0,
"bits" : "1d1b9a28",
"difficulty" : 0.03622848,
"previousblockhash" : "0000000d464a81a7e61579ac151f6f55a16a2cd1b520d2512d9e179bdbd74d20"
}
-
Are you a globally trusted source?
-
Isn't "time" encoded in the block??
EDIT:
I see your point .. the above block is already confirmed once
-
Any chance we can go back to the original topic? Would love to hear more details about the DAC's.
-
Just seen the preview video, great stuff.
Another question, since xt is a MVP, does it still include inactivity fees? If so how much are they and for what period. Can remember reading this, but unable to find the topic.
-
Just seen the preview video, great stuff.
Another question, since xt is a MVP, does it still include inactivity fees? If so how much are they and for what period. Can remember reading this, but unable to find the topic.
In activity fee 5% charged for balances that are not updated at least once per year. Just transfer it to yourself and avoid the fee.
-
Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares. If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again. Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment. After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT. However, all investments in BitShares XT proper should hold off until the likelihood of a reset to genesis due to catastrophic failure has passed. Remember this is an economic experiment with new software with minimal testing and so I do not recommend investing anything you cannot afford to lose between Feb 28th and when XT has enough time under its belt that it has earned its valuation. This is Bitcoin 2008...
What is III's marketing plan here? Since it's extremely risky for newcomers to buy BTS shortly after launch, it wouldn't make sense to do a full marketing campaign at launch. Also how are you going to determine BTS has enough time under it's belt. It's not unthinkable that a fairly big part of BTS holders are going to wait and see if the XT chain isn't in need of a reset, which would result in a fairly light test phase.
-
Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares. If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again. Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment. After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT. However, all investments in BitShares XT proper should hold off until the likelihood of a reset to genesis due to catastrophic failure has passed. Remember this is an economic experiment with new software with minimal testing and so I do not recommend investing anything you cannot afford to lose between Feb 28th and when XT has enough time under its belt that it has earned its valuation. This is Bitcoin 2008...
What is III's marketing plan here? Since it's extremely risky for newcomers to buy BTS shortly after launch, it wouldn't make sense to do a full marketing campaign at launch. Also how are you going to determine BTS has enough time under it's belt. It's not unthinkable that a fairly big part of BTS holders are going to wait and see if the XT chain isn't in need of a reset, which would result in a fairly light test phase.
We are not going to market the XT chain nor encourage anyone to buy into it (very big gamble). However, those who have an initial stake in the chain can speculate freely knowing that if something breaks the only thing they lose is their gains (or potentially losses ;) ). This means that a price can still be discovered and the network can function.
-
Clarify: If the Bitshares XT chain has to relaunch, isn't the snapshot of the new chain derived from the old chain?
-
Clarify: If the Bitshares XT chain has to relaunch, isn't the snapshot of the new chain derived from the old chain?
If the reason it has to relaunch is because of problems that distort trading, I'm sure someone will relaunch from the snapshot rather than the latest state once the issue is corrected.
-
Clarify: If the Bitshares XT chain has to relaunch, isn't the snapshot of the new chain derived from the old chain?
If the reason it has to relaunch is because of problems that distort trading, I'm sure someone will relaunch from the snapshot rather than the latest state once the issue is corrected.
As a general suggestion, new BitShares X exchanges should launch from an announced future block of the BitShares X chain just as the Feb 28th snapshot was designated as a block 30 days ahead in the BitShares PTS chain. This lets people trade their stake in that future family of DACs. (In this sense, a percentage of all AGS contributions has now been made liquid for all future BitShares X derivatives!). Over time there may evolve a whole tree of tradable proto-DACs that let people trade rights in the family for which they were the prototype.
Right now, there are two: BitShares X is the prototype for bank and exchange DACs and BitShares PTS is the prototype for all other DACs. But you can imagine that BitShares Bingo might be the prototype for a family of incorruptible gaming DACs, giving AGS and PTS holders independent liquidity to trade their stake in that family as well.
Upgrades to running exchanges should preserve the state of that chain's trading history if possible. Only in the case of a catastrophic flaw in how that history has evolved, would you reset a chain back to its beginning. We don't want people to fear their trades will be arbitrarily undone. If they ever are unfairly undone, someone will fork a clone that is more fair.
Developers may propose other options if they can convince the market it would make more sense. For example, suppose a proposed new chain combines the features of two running exchanges. It might make sense to initialize the new chain from the current state of the two predecessors in some rational ratio.
Choose your mix, make your case to the supporters you want to attract, then ask how your competitor will beat you with a better mix.
-
Is this post still up to date? It is in the sticky section and promotes Bitshares Roadmap, but it looks to me like that information is outdated.
-
Is this post still up to date? It is in the sticky section and promotes Bitshares Roadmap, but it looks to me like that information is outdated.
The general concept of snapshoting from existing chains is still valid and probably will always be. What changed are the names.
And, we not really had the XT blockchain available but directly ran into X .. upgrading it for new features when they become available.
BitShares XT, or XTS, still is the term for the testnetwork to figure out new features
-
i hope it is still true that Bitshares X is the protoDAC of the exchange & bank family :)
Can Stan confirm this point?
-
the issue here is, that Stan has no controll over people launching a third party DAC ... he cannot even force Dacsunlimited to do it.
however .. pretty much the same as with the social consensus about PTS/AGS hold here too.. further, a initial distribution HAS to be defined .. if the 3rd party would choose to not know the social consensus ... aka. not snapshoting from btsX when creating a bitsharesX derivate within the exchange ecosystem ... would make the community stop any kind of support ...
-
the issue here is, that Stan has no controll over people launching a third party DAC ... he cannot even force Dacsunlimited to do it.
however .. pretty much the same as with the social consensus about PTS/AGS hold here too.. further, a initial distribution HAS to be defined .. if the 3rd party would choose to not know the social consensus ... aka. not snapshoting from btsX when creating a bitsharesX derivate within the exchange ecosystem ... would make the community stop any kind of support ...
It is up to each developer to propose and "negotiate" their distribution strategy with the stakeholders they want to attract. All we can do is work with the BitShares community to achieve a consensus. (This usually involves stating our opinion and hiding out in the BitShares Bunker for a few days till the smoke clears.)
Our stated opinion was that, since PTS and AGS holders got 100% of BTSX, honoring BTSX at 20% would be the moral and mathematical equivalent of honoring PTS/AGS at 10/10 immediately after the Feb 28th Snapshot.
But this would then begin to diverge as people traded BTSX. We concluded that this was a good thing since BTSX would now be a more accurate demographic of those who want to own a DAC eXchange than PTS/AGS and therefore would probably be what eXchange developers would prefer to target with their free samples. In essence, they would be targeting active owners/users of an eXchange. Perfect.
We also concluded that this would be fair to PTS/AGS holders because it was their choice whether to keep or sell their stake in that demographic.
Now, what to do with the other 80% is a case each developer has to make. It is clear that some of it should be set aside to pay delegates so that the DAC can attract people to that role who are capable of attracting voters and allocating development and operational funds. It might be justified to set aside some to attract other demographics and/or other partners the DAC needs. There may need to be some funds set aside to develop the new concept, i.e. to pay the people you need to build the DAC before launch. After launch, we think allocating shares for further development and maintenance should take place through the delegates, not necessarily a big war chest for the original developer who could theoretically lose interest and retire.
But all these things are free for each developer to negotiate with the collection of stakeholders she needs to make the DAC a success. If she gets it wrong, someone will clone it and do the allocation differently.
All that said, it is still important to have the benefits of holding shares in PTS, AGS, BTSX, and any future genre-defining protoDACs be clear and unambiguous. After all, this honor is part of what defined the value of that DAC.
BTSX holders should therefore get at least 20% of new eXchange DACs. If the new exchange is just a clone with a few different parameters and no real development or operational expenses, then that percentage should be much higher - with funds set aside for delegates being the only compelling exception we see in general.
If someone launches a BitShares DAC outside the eXchange family, then the consensus was to honor PTS and AGS holders who continued to participate after February 28th. The family of non-exchange DACs already announced all fall into this category, since they were represented as such during the AGS campaign.
Finally, we have to give developers the freedom to negotiate as they develop and and reason about the optimum mix. The first mix they ever mention when they are new and have done no great amount of thinking should not be considered an iron-clad commitment until they state it as such. Usually this should happen at the time the snapshot date is announced, leaving at least two weeks for people to decide how to position their own proto-portfolio.
-
further ... due to all recent debate on the MUSIC distribution ... the btsx distribution officially was 50%/50% .. but as the snapshot was made on AGS/PTS and i3 holding a HUGE portion of PTS (due to the AGS donations) .. they effectively own a big portion of btsx too .. we hade several discussion in this forum about whether this is good or not .. but the conclusion is the same as cob's (the head of MUSIC): the underlying firm/developers need to be payed and that stake is used for exactly that purpose .. boost the development and marketing ...
I jsut noticed I am way off topic .. just want to say that out loud :)
-
Can we snapshot other dacs instead of just pts/ags?
The social consensus is that a min of 10% goes to both ags & pts, but why not take a snapshot of btsx and other trusted bitshares dacs? It would seriously help distribution and also bring a lot more users to new dacs.
-
Can we snapshot other dacs instead of just pts/ags?
The social consensus is that a min of 10% goes to both ags & pts, but why not take a snapshot of btsx and other trusted bitshares dacs? It would seriously help distribution and also bring a lot more users to new dacs.
I would caution against this. I realize this is kind of a slippery slope argument - If we keep snapshotting one dac after another, it's going to turn into a situation very similar to a ponzi scheme, where the true value is always a DAC or two down the line.
AGS and PTS were explicitly advertised as being vehicles for DAC snapshots, so there's no problem with those, but BTSX was never advertised as such.
-
the original plans were to have all banking/exchange DACs snapshot from the proto BTSX chain .. as BTSX grew to a DAC itself i am not sure if future banking/exchange DACs (i.e. BTSY) are going to snapshot from BTSX or PTS/AGS ... I think this will be discussed when it's about time
-
Can we snapshot other dacs instead of just pts/ags?
The social consensus is that a min of 10% goes to both ags & pts, but why not take a snapshot of btsx and other trusted bitshares dacs? It would seriously help distribution and also bring a lot more users to new dacs.
I would caution against this. I realize this is kind of a slippery slope argument - If we keep snapshotting one dac after another, it's going to turn into a situation very similar to a ponzi scheme, where the true value is always a DAC or two down the line.
AGS and PTS were explicitly advertised as being vehicles for DAC snapshots, so there's no problem with those, but BTSX was never advertised as such.
Yeah, I realize that pts/ags is the snapshot chain, but PTS is ridiculously volatile - immediately after a snapshot it crashes. Not only that, but PTS is a POW crypto, pretty naff imo. I fail to see how distributing a small chunk (10%) to a snapshot of another dac would make it a ponzi scheme.. It'd be like buying users from one dac for a small introductory share each. PTS offers us nothing, BTSX offers us far more.