Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Empirical1.1

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ... 59
571
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 22, 2014, 01:03:44 pm »
I think the problem is BTSX can agree to things thanks to DPOS whereas it's very hard to reach consensus in the other areas of BitShares conceived before DPOS.

VOTE DAC + dilution would have forked features like BitUSD, Marketplace & possibly DNS. it would have used dilution to drive a network effect. This will make it hard for BTSX, PTS, AGS & DNS  to compete. However the VOTE DAC is not limited from pursuing that strategy.

BTSX has realised they would be uncompetitive within BitShares vs. VOTE and has largely agreed to a dilution so that it can pursue VOTE DAC strategy. (Dilution and more features than BitAssets) BTSX can also agree to this separately via DPOS without a merger this week. They are perfectly in their rights to do so.

Perhaps by next week the implications of a more competitive BTSX will be apparent to AGS, PTS, DNS etc.

The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.



572
General Discussion / Re: We doubt for BTS Merger, consider PTS, AGS and DNS holders
« on: October 22, 2014, 11:19:18 am »
Quote from: GaltReport on October 22, 2014, 11:02:26 am
Quote from: kisa0145 on October 22, 2014, 09:12:24 am
Quote from: Mr-Pts on October 22, 2014, 09:03:56 am
+5% +5% +5%
support you

Please consider the possibility that 3i proposals are aimed at defending PTS, AGS, and DNS interests medium-and long-term. In this case, holders of each DAC have to agree on some balanced compromise, any resolution would be impossible without re-distribution of DAC tokens properties.

At almost any stage, as a leader 3i has advanced private information compared to all other investors. Not all of this can be made public instanteniously. If 3i, for example, sees a strong possibility that without merger most other DACs' prospects would be threatened by VOTE soon, then we should be glad that they propose the merger. Then everyone is strengthened and gets a great chance of multiplying your returns, without conflict of interest for 3i.

Making investment decisions which are not based on trust in 3i is currently very difficult, unfortunately. So please ask  them questions, evaluate their track record, make your proposals, and decide whether you trust them or not finding balance in defending your medium- and long-term interests.

 +5% Good advice.

 +5%

573
General Discussion / Re: Will 3rd Party DACs honor PTS/AGS in the future?
« on: October 22, 2014, 02:07:02 am »
Quote from: gamey on October 22, 2014, 01:11:19 am
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 22, 2014, 12:54:24 am


I think social consensus for PTS/AGS was 20% or we may fork you, whereas I think BTS will fork any feature from a competitor that adds value to BTS regardless of equity BTS is given. Not sure though.

Good luck with the 'we may fork you' idea.   chuckle.

Well I understand these changes could alienate some people.

I sold a bit of my BTSX partly in protest & on principal because I felt I was buying into a BTSX with no dilution and people like BM's full attention on the base development side but that the rules had been changed on me. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10240.msg134442#msg134442

However it's the same old awesome BM & crew and they're just doing their job of fulfilling their grand vision and ultimately our interest. I'm sure he would have not wanted to suggest DNS & Vote get less than X% or PTS+AGS<20% or dilute a hard cap like BTSX by 20%. There was an option for him to go and pursue the Super DAC with dilution via Vote, while fulfilling his minimum obligations to the rest of the ecosystem. The majority overwhelmingly wanted a merger instead. In fact the vision for 1 BitShares is pretty great imo. Of course some won't want it & everyone will be compromising a lot & each individual group will feel like they're the ones compromising the most, this is human nature. I'm sorry it's not exactly the same as you thought it was in the beginning and PTS didn't get the equity you're sure they deserve. I hope we don't lose your positive contribution. I hope we don't lose too many non dilutionists. I hope we don't lose the DNS'ers. 90% of me is still here. I'm really proud to be a part of this community and BitShares.

574
General Discussion / Re: Will 3rd Party DACs honor PTS/AGS in the future?
« on: October 22, 2014, 12:54:24 am »
Quote from: gamey on October 22, 2014, 12:12:00 am
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 21, 2014, 11:59:25 pm
Quote from: gamey on October 21, 2014, 10:51:58 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 10:21:32 pm
Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

Seriously?  BTS owners see other DACs as competition.  There would be little value in sharedropping to BTS as those people have no specific interest in these things.  You've completely broken the value of sharedropping to a PTS like entity by mixing up the demographcs.  PTS/AGS were people whom specifically wanted new DACs.  BTS = 80% people who will have random views, 20% who are interested in new DACS.   AGS/PTS = people 100% interested in new DACs.

The keys will always exist for those who keep their wallets. 

If I was a third party dev and I wanted to play nice I'd give to BTS and make it vested over 2 years... Or I would find a demographic that would show my DAC support.

... but we'll let people figure this out as it all unravels down whatever path we're taking...

With Vote DAC now to be included on BTS, third parties can honour unique individuals. So you can sharedrop equally to 100 000 unique people based on criteria that most suit your DAC. It's really quite amazing when you think of the implications. Only young men 26-34 who describe themselves as Libertarian based in South America who are already owners of DACs such as... Etc. Being able to target unique individuals even if they want to remain private but disclose info by consent makes my AGS pretty unnatractive imo.

So if I use this system and select a valued subset of BTS and give it to my DAC, then that means social consensus is intact ?

I think social consensus for PTS/AGS was 20% or we may fork you, whereas I think BTS will fork any feature from a competitor that adds value to BTS regardless of equity BTS is given. Not sure though.

575
General Discussion / Re: Will 3rd Party DACs honor PTS/AGS in the future?
« on: October 21, 2014, 11:59:25 pm »
Quote from: gamey on October 21, 2014, 10:51:58 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 10:21:32 pm
Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

Seriously?  BTS owners see other DACs as competition.  There would be little value in sharedropping to BTS as those people have no specific interest in these things.  You've completely broken the value of sharedropping to a PTS like entity by mixing up the demographcs.  PTS/AGS were people whom specifically wanted new DACs.  BTS = 80% people who will have random views, 20% who are interested in new DACS.   AGS/PTS = people 100% interested in new DACs.

The keys will always exist for those who keep their wallets. 

If I was a third party dev and I wanted to play nice I'd give to BTS and make it vested over 2 years... Or I would find a demographic that would show my DAC support.

... but we'll let people figure this out as it all unravels down whatever path we're taking...

With Vote DAC now to be included on BTS, third parties can honour unique individuals. So you can sharedrop equally to 100 000 unique people based on criteria that most suit your DAC. It's really quite amazing when you think of the implications. Only young men 26-34 who describe themselves as Libertarian based in South America who are already owners of DACs such as... Etc. Being able to target unique individuals even if they want to remain private but disclose info by consent makes my AGS pretty unnatractive imo.

576
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 21, 2014, 05:00:28 pm »
 +5%

577
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 04:55:58 pm »
Quote from: NewMine on October 21, 2014, 04:30:35 pm
Quote from: roadkill on October 21, 2014, 04:10:14 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 03:44:45 pm
Whether there were 100 DACs or just BTSX, the point is that AGS was given 6X the equity of PTS solely because they chose to be "locked in". Now we're gifting them the liquidity of PTS and they get to keep the 6X? That is provably unfair... but I'm sure bytemaster will not bless us with his logic on this one other than saying, "it's the best we can do." Sad for a computer scientist to ignore simple logic in this way...

http://www1.agsexplorer.com/
5,625.02597337 BTC donated for 1,000,000.0 AGS
415,218.03087392 PTS donated for 1,000,000.0 AGS

177.7 AGS per BTC donated
2.408 AGS per PTS donated

Wheres the 6X

I am not sure.

You have to know the prices if BTC and PTS to figure it out realisticly.

Say BTC was $600 on average.

$600/177AGS = ~3.4 dollars per AGS

Say PTS was $12 on average

$12/2.4AGS = ~$5/AGS

By those calculations PTS about 30% more for an AGS based on those numbers.

Could be wrong though.

Useful analysis.

I would also say PTS has already gained some advantage from it's liquidity. I currently own 0 but I have bought and sold it as a trade & based on how I felt about snapshots, something I've been unable to do with AGS. How much that has already offset the discrepancy is subjective though.

I would also say the majority have an interest in seeing BTSX CAP which will become BTS respond positively to the decision.

The majority at this stage wants to have a seamless transition to getting a stake in a big pie as opposed to arguing to the point where they have a larger piece of a crumb. Time is of the essence.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8k8ETko16tQ


578
General Discussion / Re: The Significance of What We Are Doing...(Vote)
« on: October 21, 2014, 02:15:23 pm »
After looking briefly at the Knights Templar, one of the main secret societies most modern groups seem to trace some of their roots back too, I decided to remain a bit more open to what secret societies actually do. At the time of the Knights Templar power rested in the hands of a small minority, Monarchs and the Church & freedom of movement was greatly restricted. The Knights Templar seemed to improve upon that situation. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8578.0 (Interesting documentary link there.)

However I had another crazy theory leading on from there that lead me to believe the date for getting your money out of the current financial system could be 20/10/2014 however, it has passed, so so much for that one  :P

I would suggest secret societies by their nature have a limited pool of talent from which to draw (See Bush & Kerry  :P) even though they probably are at the best universities etc. I would also suggest that the average age of the highest members must be quite old, so if they have historically had significant influence, that balance of power will shift as freedom of information & money is opened up. I'm undecided whether that is a completely positive thing.

579
General Discussion / Re: How much btsx did you panic sell?
« on: October 21, 2014, 10:58:33 am »
I sold for the first time ever

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg132130#msg132130

Not a big amount, still circa 15% in the green but not bought back with bit I sold, probably won't. I think BTS looks amazing and I've been so impressed with this community, very proud to be a part of it but I think I'm happy with new position going forward.

580
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 02:04:55 am »
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 01:50:12 am
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 21, 2014, 01:46:17 am
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 01:38:53 am
Quote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 01:27:42 am
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 12:41:10 am
It was stated on this forum that each dollar of AGS donated prior to Feb 28th was equal to $6.6 of PTS. I think we can all agree that this difference was SOLELY due to the fact that PTS is liquid and AGS is illiquid.

It stands to reason that any plan for converting AGS to a liquid asset should provide exactly 6.6X greater equity for each converted pre-snapshot PTS. In other words, pre-snapshot PTS should receive 6.6X greater equity in the new DAC to offset the "gift" of liquidity granted to AGS holders. 6.6X is in fact the quantifiable "value" of liquidity, as proven by the market price.

Let's ignore post-snapshot PTS for the time being and talk about why this does or does not make sense.

Please state your "disclosure"

My "disclosure" is irrelevant and, even if relevant, unverifiable. I'd just like to hear the rationale for the seemingly random, "equal", or other allocations. Love it or hate it I've provided an objective metric. If you disagree, tell me why I'm wrong.

Pre-snapshot, Post-Snapshot PTS? None of them are honoured. PTS is liquid. It only has value if you currently hold it. The people who held PTS pre-snapshot are able to get a stake and then sell the PTS for it's residual value or continue holding it anytime you sold PTS you received fair value. Only people that currently hold PTS are going to be given a BTS stake that is an approximation of fair value.

Perfectly valid point, and hints at an issue that I tried to avoid (at least initially). But doesn't address the main point which is the very real value of the "gift" of liquidity given to AGS holders.

Yeah as I said above you could potentially give them less or make them wait longer. The AGSers are the real long term believers and supporters of DACs with a lot of faith in BM so on the one hand they deserve more on the other hand you can err on the side of giving them less as we're the most likely to not quibble over a few % and support BTS regardless.

However looking at PTS price it's holding at round 10% of BTSX price so you could argue that's the region the market is expecting.

So somewhere in that region 8-10% each, 50/50 is simplest & is going to be generally acceptable imo.

(I have equalish BTSX & AGS % but no PTS)

581
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 01:46:17 am »
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 01:38:53 am
Quote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 01:27:42 am
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 12:41:10 am
It was stated on this forum that each dollar of AGS donated prior to Feb 28th was equal to $6.6 of PTS. I think we can all agree that this difference was SOLELY due to the fact that PTS is liquid and AGS is illiquid.

It stands to reason that any plan for converting AGS to a liquid asset should provide exactly 6.6X greater equity for each converted pre-snapshot PTS. In other words, pre-snapshot PTS should receive 6.6X greater equity in the new DAC to offset the "gift" of liquidity granted to AGS holders. 6.6X is in fact the quantifiable "value" of liquidity, as proven by the market price.

Let's ignore post-snapshot PTS for the time being and talk about why this does or does not make sense.

Please state your "disclosure"

My "disclosure" is irrelevant and, even if relevant, unverifiable. I'd just like to hear the rationale for the seemingly random, "equal", or other allocations. Love it or hate it I've provided an objective metric. If you disagree, tell me why I'm wrong.

Pre-snapshot, Post-Snapshot PTS? None of them are honoured. PTS is liquid. It only has value if you currently hold it. The people who held PTS pre-snapshot are able to get a stake and then sell the PTS for it's residual value or continue holding it anytime you sold PTS you received fair value. Only people that currently hold PTS are going to be given a BTS stake that is an approximation of fair value.

You could argue that AGS is given slightly less or that they have a period of time before they can access it I guess.

Edit: Oh I misunderstood. You're arguing pre BTS snapshot should get should get 6.6x AGS

Nah I would just make AGS wait longer before they could claim maybe.

582
General Discussion / Re: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?
« on: October 21, 2014, 01:07:46 am »
Quote from: Thom on October 21, 2014, 12:25:38 am
Wow! how things move fast around here.

I listened to the mumble session and have spent the last 6 hours reading. I hold only BTSX and got in about 2 months ago.

But I haven't really seen the X of BTSX materialize. There is no way to trade other cryptos with BTSX unless you use some OTHER exchange. So there's something quite different about the btsX than all other crypto exchanges available today. There's so much discussed and so many ideas I've practically forgotten about BTSX as an eXchange.

I'm generally in favor of BM's proposal. I do have a question about what I'll be invested in after the merger. When I bought BTSX I thought I was investing in the eXchange, which would become worth more as each new DAC was added. I viewed it similarly to how PTS investors view their share "dividends" accrued with each new DAC launched.

I'm not too sure that was an accurate perspective, but that was my viewpoint. I never felt I had an explicit understanding of how a new DAC would add to my BTSX value.  But I was confident in BM's vision and believed the time was right to get onboard. I've been listening to BM since April.

So what will change after the merger? Will I get any Music, Vote, DNS or XYZ DAC shares, or is my gain more through association like my original impression?

BTSX is an exchange in that it lets you hold the value of cryptos and real world assets in a decentralised way! Within the wallet you can trade BitBTC, BitUSD, BitCNY and BitGold soon many more will be added. Also it's still finalising development and has yet to be marketed. BTSX on its own is an exciting proposition.

What will change after the merger is that more new features will be added to BTSX from other DACs and it will change from BitSharesX to BitShares. It will become a SuperDAC that is the sole focus of key BitShares talent. The downside is that your current position will be diluted so if you owned 10% of BTSX after the merger you will probably own 8-8.5% of the new BitShares.

583
General Discussion / Re: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?
« on: October 21, 2014, 12:44:57 am »
Quote from: gamey on October 21, 2014, 12:35:44 am
Quote from: toast on October 21, 2014, 12:28:33 am
Quote from: gamey on October 21, 2014, 12:27:39 am
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward.  This % will be severely diluted.  If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. 


What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?

Yes.  Was this not what Dan sold as his vision for donations... from the beginning? All these low barrier to entry DACs?  Has everyone done a 180 on that view now ?

Outside a core group of existing BitShares related talent Hackfisher, Toast, Eddie & Cob and perhaps Vote etc. there was really not much in the upcoming pipeline really. The one third party that did honour it LTS didn't do so well. Plus in a few months there'll be Ethereum competing for attention anyway. Personally I think this is a great deal for PTS and my AGS stake.

584
General Discussion / Re: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?
« on: October 21, 2014, 12:29:20 am »
Quote from: roadkill on October 21, 2014, 12:23:28 am
Quote from: gamey on October 21, 2014, 12:20:27 am
THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned.  It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition.  How do you even put that into the equation ?  You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.

I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value

Yes I believe that it will add value but the point is that it is subjective, you can't reach consensus on it as PTS doesn't have DPOS.

I would say BTSX has already lost value by losing many of the 'non-dilutionists' whatever decision you take may lose you some support from a small group of AGS/PTS/BTSX. Personally I would rather we err on the side of favouring BTSX.

585
General Discussion / Re: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?
« on: October 21, 2014, 12:14:08 am »
Quote from: Ander on October 21, 2014, 12:03:36 am
10/10/80 is slightly more generous than it looks like Bytemaster may have been discussing, which was in the 16-18% range for PTS+AGS (+DNS?).   (That is, his original proposal seems to be more like my proposal A?)

If the PTS/AGS hholders end up getting 10/10/80, plus MUSIC shares that we BTSX holders didnt get, then you came out ahead. 

if the PTS holders get just under that, console yourselves with the fact that you also got MUSIC and we (BTSX buyers) didnt.

Yeah A is what I think will work best. I have a similar % AGS so I won't be too affected regardless.

But I think going beyond A is negative for BTSX & BTSX is the biggest CAP.

Also many BTSX shareholders won't have any AGS or PTS whereas PTS & AGS shareholders are almost guaranteed to already have a position in BTSX.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ... 59

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 23 queries.