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 ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
751
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Best MUSIC DAC launch model for 2014?
« on: September 30, 2014, 04:25:04 pm »
Quote from: Stan on September 30, 2014, 12:54:20 pm
Quote from: luckybit on September 30, 2014, 11:24:43 am
Quote from: delulo on September 29, 2014, 10:30:16 pm
Quote from: mf-tzo on September 29, 2014, 09:34:47 pm
Quote
I wouldn't allocate 30% to presale. It's too much imo. Investors who participate in presale basically seek to short-term profit; they are dumpers. In addition, if we allocate too many Notes to presale, the average price will be lowered, especially given the situation that crypto-market is experiencing recession, and then this will generate negative effects on AGS/PTS holders.

And it is not 'only 5%' because initial suggestion was 45%. 15 out of 45 is a quite big difference.

I fully agree with that quote
I'd disagree because sufficient starting capital and new supporters (also for the whole bitshares ecosystem!) are so crucial. Thinking in terms of exponential growth and giving away first helps a lot in my experience! A balance has to be found...

Where are your numbers to back this? How do we know they aren't just trying to line their pockets?

Show an adoption graph which proves that adoption is going at a certain rate and then make a roadmap of features that are being paid for.

Asking for money without any math, charts, strategy or business plan is not fair to investors. What are we going to learn in the IPO that we don't already know to make the IPO worth doing?

Quote from: donkeypong on September 30, 2014, 05:04:36 am
Quote from: heyD on September 30, 2014, 04:49:49 am
Quote from: Stan on September 30, 2014, 04:15:30 am
4.  By giving Eddie and Cob the freedom to explore all business models we are now at 35/35 up from 25/25 and way up from the 10/10 minimums.

And we should also make it clear that how many more Notes at most will be brought to this DAC by delegates. Otherwise investors may have doubts “is it possible for me to buy 5% of the shares which may become just 0.005% in two years due to the inflation?"

Bitcoin POW is bad but at least the investors clearly know that a certain amount of coins are mined each ten minutes. You make your choise.

We should tell the investors “no, we have restrictions, your 5% would at least worth 1%, no less."

I think that's a fair request to make of them. And of the BitShares X folks as well.

They need to think very carefully about their incentives. The DAC needs participants and the wrong incentives will make us move our attention elsewhere. If PTS/AGS owners feel like they'll lose in the long term then they aren't going to have a reason to hold or stay in right now.

Why wouldn't it be rational to immediately sell before the presale buyers who got even cheaper notes can sell theirs and then buy back in a year or two later after other DACs with better incentives and no inflation have made profit?

Inflation is not a very competitive incentive unless you have an audience or group of participants who truly believe in the success of your DAC. Not many people at this time believe in Bitshares Music being a success enough to deal with inflation early on.

Also Bitcoiners aren't going to hold either when the price of Bitcoin is crashing due to inflation. Bitcoiners will pump and dump and since AGS/PTS holders know this is coming why wouldn't the AGS/PTS holders immediately sell too? AGS/PTS holders aren't going to want to be bag holders.

Tell me why the scenario would play out different?

None of this takes place in a vacuum.  The people making the decisions about whether to add value to the DAC in exchange for new notes are the existing noteholders who are not likely to approve anything that is not expected to increase their net worth.

The 10% allocated to the BitShares Music Foundation is also your assurance that the Foundation will be properly motivated to act in a way to protect the net worth of all noteholders.

To summarize:

There is downward pressure on price for issuing new notes.
There is upward pressure on price from the benefit of what those notes are buying.

You don't approve the deal unless the latter pressure is greater than the former.

Net result - all such deals should increase the value of your shares over time.

That's why flesh and blood and brick and mortar companies do this routinely.

It is the time-proven way to grow a company for the benefit of all its stakeholders.    :)

Sometimes not all the stakeholders...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOMUe26X3mo


752
General Discussion / Re: BitNation - Governance 2.0
« on: September 30, 2014, 02:17:58 pm »
Quote from: dat peg doe on September 30, 2014, 01:52:37 pm
Other then 'stealing' my idea https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8881.msg115238#msg115238

and putting bit* in front of the next word (which annoys me more and more by the day)

They are missing the first 2 elements of the 'one earth one nation concept'. One should start with :

-money
-vote

...

I would add information to that list, so like BDNS. Information-Money-Vote

I think BitNation is putting together elements these kind of concepts

Quote from: bytemaster on February 10, 2014, 09:43:42 pm
Consensus technology has the power to make governments irrelevant to the provision of law, courts, crime prevention, contract enforcement, voting, or any other so-called public good. 

I am not claiming that governments will be overthrown or that people will vote them out of office, instead I mean to say that their rulings and opinions will be of no practical significance once superior consensus technologies are able to garner more influence and power through voluntary, nonviolent, entirely legal action than governments can wield at gunpoint.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2853.msg35523#msg35523



753
General Discussion / Re: Crazy Idea. Change 'BitShares-PTS' on Coinmarketcap when 'snapshot hot'?
« on: September 30, 2014, 10:19:51 am »
Similar to the above, the idea of changing (even if we pay a fee) 'BitShares PTS' to something like,
'PTS - Music Snapshot 10th Oct' on CMC with a link could be quite useful if it was do-able.

(Advertising both BitShares Music and the purpose of BitShares PTS.)

754
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Future DAC Delegate Pay Model
« on: September 29, 2014, 08:18:28 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2014, 07:53:10 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on September 29, 2014, 07:50:32 pm
I even like having as little as 5 positions to focus on that can get access to a budget flow and be the accountable face of the DAC.

The 101 Delegates are like an IT role to me, while incredibly important it is separate and can't be followed all the time especially in multiple DAC's whereas the top 5 key people can.

I also still don't like inflation/dilution. I prefer setting aside 10% of the shares initially with a social consensus on how many will be released a year. (Like 25% of the remaining total a year).
So unless the business plan is flawed/there's a great opportunity/there's a great emergency, then there will be no need for inflation, only the distribution of shares that have been set aside in the business plan.

So you would say that only the top 5 delegates can receive more income than transaction fees.

If we were going to keep the existing system then yes, I would be happier if only the top 5 trusted delegates got more than transaction fees and allocated them as necessary. (They would be the most well known, trusted and it would be easier to track and hold 5 people's actions to account than 101.)

But I also don't mind if there ended up being up to 5 key separate positions, like some are suggesting, so Brian could campaign to be 'marketing director' & get access to the/a budget without running a delegate for example.

755
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Future DAC Delegate Pay Model
« on: September 29, 2014, 07:50:32 pm »
I even like having as little as 5 positions to focus on that can get access to a budget flow and be the accountable face of the DAC.

The 101 Delegates are like an IT role to me, while incredibly important it is separate and can't be followed all the time especially in multiple DAC's whereas the top 5 key people can.

I also still don't like inflation/dilution. I prefer setting aside 10% of the shares initially with a social consensus on how many will be released a year. (Like 25% of the remaining total a year).
So unless the business plan is flawed/there's a great opportunity/there's a great emergency, then there will be no need for inflation, only the distribution of shares that have been set aside in the business plan.

756
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Future DAC Delegate Pay Model
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:37:45 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2014, 03:01:50 pm
Do you really think that BTSX can fund 10 years of development on a couple million dollars?   Here is what BTSX needs to grow to the Multi-Billion dollar network we all want to see:

1) A web development team of 10 people producing and maintain a web wallet.
2) A backend development team of 10 c++ developers producing countless tests, enhancing performance, and improving security.
3) A mobile app development team of 10 people focusing only on maximizing ease of use on mobile apps.
4) A legal team working around the clock to lay the ground work for companies like Overstock and help guide the development team
5) A massive referral network / marketing campaign similar to how PayPal got bootstrapped.
6) A dozen exchanges / gateways facilitating bringing money into/out of BTSX while following all regulatory issues. 
       - each of these exchanges/gateways needs a team of people to integrate their systems with BTSX

Total cost of maintaining that kind of infrastructure?  At least $10 million per year for 10 years or $100 million dollars.

Do you really think a project can raise enough funding prior to having a proven / working base system and expect that funding to last for 10 years?
Do you really want a foundation to be sitting on 10 years worth of funding in advance?
Do you really want it to be forever centralized in the original developers / foundation with the initial funding?
Do you really want developers to be developing at a slower pace despite having funds today so they don't run out of funds in the future?

These are all the issues people must grapple with.   

I am working on a plan to keep BTSX up to date with the best possible software for 10+ years without adding dilution to BTSX.   But for new systems AGS/PTS holders benefit greatly from a larger initial allocation + dilution under their control rather than a smaller initial allocation with no control over how the 80% dilution they could face would be allocated.

First off, all of that sounds awesome and I appreciate the hard work and plan you are putting in place to avoid adding dilution to BTSX.

However to me, it seems DAC's can achieve it by setting aside as little as 10% of the initial shares.

Using BTSX CAP as an example. If 10% of shares were set aside (200 Million BTSX) and 25% are made available to spend the following year.

Then at the end of this year if BTSX was worth $200 million, there would be $5 million worth of shares (10%*0.25 = 50 million BTSX) available to spend in 2015 in addition to revenue.

At the end of 2015 if BTSX is $500 million. Then (7.5%*0.25=1.875%) there would be $9 million + revenue available to spend in 2016.

At the end of 2016 BTSX is $1 Billion. Now (5.6*0.25=1.4%) $14 million is available for year 3.

So to me it seems setting aside a small % of shares can achieve a similar result without having dilution.
(Even if that is kind of like pre-dilution, it's a big difference shareholders knowing it in advance and having a fixed initial share amount vs. constant dilution/inflation. Even though their may be occasional separate situations such as the one Stan described.)   

Quote from: emski on September 29, 2014, 03:12:52 pm
What I meant was that delegate's pay shouldn't dilute the DAC. Delegates should get percentage of fees. (An option is instead of burning the remainder of the fees to go to a fund controlled by shareholders).

Yeah I don't think delegates pay should dilute the DAC.


757
General Discussion / Re: Future DAC Delegate Pay Model
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:06:14 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on September 29, 2014, 02:34:57 pm
Quote from: blahblah7up on September 29, 2014, 02:20:39 pm
It certainly isn't merely about Delegate Pay Models but a rather sweeping proposal effecting the entire ecosystem structure.
*agreed* .. it's currently a little difficult for me to grasp all consequences of the proposal .. need to re-read that thread more some times

I have to read it more myself. I know like many I have some instant negative associations to inflation/dilution even when I don't understand the proposal.

Quote from: Stan on September 29, 2014, 02:18:16 pm
Think of it this way:  One year after this DAC gets launched, it's growth and performance comes to the attention of a major music industry player who represents, say, 200 of the biggest names.   She agrees to bring her clients to the table in exchange for, say, 2% (or 20%) of the business.  In doing so, she doubles the value of the business overnight and sets it on a new accelerated growth path because all of their fans are now going to learn about BitShares Music in a real and viral way.

That sounds like a separate situation and while events like that could be VERY favourable,  they would only happen a couple of times in the life of a DAC though & can be voted on separately when they occur.

758
General Discussion / Re: Future DAC Delegate Pay Model
« on: September 29, 2014, 01:57:53 pm »
In general I personally think any dilution/inflation beyond that clearly laid out in the initial business plan will be cryptonite to a DAC for the next 18 months.

(Until DAC's and the delegate systems around them are far more established, developed and understood any inflation/dilution will be incredibly unpopular imo.)

759
General Discussion / Re: BitGLD has 49 valid feeds. Here we go!
« on: September 29, 2014, 01:30:05 pm »
Quote from: matt608 on September 29, 2014, 07:26:28 am
Quote from: liondani on September 29, 2014, 03:12:53 am
I like  bitGLD but if you change the name then I prefer bitGOLD

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

I prefer bitGold or bitXAU, but I don't think it can be changed...

 +5%

760
General Discussion / Re: Bitcointalk Censoring old posts of me exchanging messages with Satoshi
« on: September 29, 2014, 01:01:18 pm »
Well I put the topic in the main Bitcoin discussion area but it was moved to Meta, I guess that's where it's supposed to go.

BadBear has restored the post, which is good  :)

Quote from: FandangledGizmo on September 29, 2014, 01:00:46 pm
Quote from: BadBear on September 29, 2014, 12:46:58 pm
Someone bumped the thread with a quote and reply to byteshares about bitshares (which is off topic, alt currencies). Easy to assume byteshares post was a part of that if the dates weren't checked. I restored that post. None of Satoshi's posts were deleted.

Great  :)    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.0

However, there is no one named 'byteshares' the poster is 'Bytemaster'? It sounds like in the response above you are justifying deleting it because 'byteshares' sounds like 'Bitshares' but the poster is Bytemaster and the words Bytemaster and BitShares are not as easily confused, but thanks I'm glad it's been restored.

Edit: Although I see Bytemaster does have BitShares in his title thing (Bytemaster is the main founder of BitShares) , so maybe that caused the confusion.

761
General Discussion / Re: Bitsapphire working on a general purpose bitAsset wallet [designs inside]
« on: September 29, 2014, 11:49:50 am »
First impressions are that it seems very good! +5% +5% +5%

762
General Discussion / Re: Which countries are going to adopt Bitcoin?
« on: September 29, 2014, 11:43:27 am »
Bitcoin? None unfortunately  :(  Many may adopt BitAssets though  :)

763
General Discussion / Re: Bitcointalk Censoring old posts of me exchanging messages with Satoshi
« on: September 29, 2014, 11:22:17 am »
I'm not sure what to make of it myself.

I posted a topic about it on Bitcointalk though yesterday https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801613.0 which has got some responses.

764
General Discussion / Re: Future DAC Delegate Pay Model
« on: September 29, 2014, 11:10:01 am »
I don't like dilution but if there was dilution at least 51 delegates should be required to approve it or the dilution request should be made well in advance and follow a clear set of procedures and be properly advertised in the client so shareholders can take a position in advance on it.

Example: Delegate.Max issues 14 day notice of a request for 0.01% dilution paid via his delegate for the following program 'Billboard advertising (link)'

Then you have some kind of voting procedure, even if it's as simple as  shareholders removeing approval from Max and getting him out of the 101 delegates. (He will see his approval going lower and will adjust and re-issue his proposal or remove it if there is a negative response.) 

However I don't think dilution should ever be necessary. The initial business plan should set aside a pool of shares that can be used to pay for programmes and expenses using a shareholder voting system. This should fund the development of the DAC until such time as fees are sufficient to cover it.

For BTSX

I think delegates should be paid from  fees but I don't think we should be immediately burning the remaining fees not going to delegates. They should go into a separate pool, then every 4 months we have a 'shareholder meeting' & vote on how to spend those fees. Shareholders can either vote

Burn
Roll-over (Keep fees in pool and roll them over to next 4 month shareholder meeting.)
Fund (Elect to fund 1 or more of the initiatives put down at least 14 days in advance of the shareholder meeting by keeping the delegate proposing it in office.)   

Edit - For AGS

Not exactly related, but off the top of my head I think AGS needs to be made liquid for one month a year, say January to bring in new money and widen it's shareholder base and prevent it from being a closed club.

I think a pool of shares should have been set aside initially for the long term development and promotion of AGS but if they weren't, then it is a case where dilution may be needed and leading up to the liquid month, wecould perhaps vote on a dilution %. So perhaps the majority will agree on a 5% dilution to be given to I3 to promote and develop AGS for the next year for example based on the proposal they give shareholders on what they think they will be able to achieve etc.

765
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Music non-technical paper. For those that missed it.
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:46:01 pm »
Quote
  3.2.3 Token Controlled Access
Bands can even offer special treats to their artistcoin holders. For example a band could announce that anyone with over 100 of their coins can just show up at any of their concerts, as long as they have their balance on their smartphone for the bouncer to see before letting them in. Another example could be to grant the 10 largest coin holders access backstage to meet / hang out with the band or something as simple as "Artistcoin holders get a free t-shirt and a picture with the band". This process can be automated too. A user logging into his PeerTracks account might see different files available for download and at different prices on music, concert tickets and merchandise depending on how many of that artist’s coin he holds. Some artists might allow large coin holders to download anything they have for free, maybe even allow private messaging. Whatever the band decides really. It's a way to:
Show appreciation for the support
Make the value of the band's coin appreciate.
An artistcoin that goes up in value is great, but one that also comes with all kinds of perks can be worth way more to diehard fans. All at negligible cost to the band itself.

Really like that part. The applications and ways artists can add value to their stock especially for fans, go way beyond just selling their tracks.

I suppose depending how much they're trusted, they may also be able to fund concerts/tours/albums through their artist coin by offering coin holders a % of their separate revenue from those activities.

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 23 queries.