We are in the process of auditing payments, but the number of people that submitted the form and were assigned a PTS or BTC address is about 650.

If everyone paid that is worth at least $100K for Invictus to develop Keyhotee.  If they can sell $100K worth of PTS without crashing the market.

Quote from: jorneyflair on December 25, 2013, 12:19:49 pm

10% --> 50%? are you serious? I do NOT think the rule should ever been changed though i hold over 3,000 PTS .

P1.Rules are rules .  You cant issue an order in the morning and rescind it in the evening , how can i trust the PLAN in the near future?

P2." PTS holders will get 50% stake in BitShares, a 5x gain from existing Social Contract" and what about the new comer in the future , like a new  alternate cryptocurrency has been 50% premined? honestly i hate such coins if i were the new fish.

Merry christmas any way

I completely agree with this post and am really glad someone else recognizes that changing the deal even for the better is wrong because we signed on to a specific plan.  My expectation was that it would be 10% protoshares holders and 90% mined, the fact that 90% would be mined is actually a good thing.  Taking away mining removes a main avenue for non-monetary investment into the thing

I think people need to realize investment involves taking scarce economic resources and allocating them in a way that increases value.  By mining shares into existence you consume resources while transferring value from existing holders to yourself.   You may be better off so long as the value transferred to you is greater than the value you consumed, but I fail to see how the rest of society is better off having enriched you simply for consuming electricity.

If you want to invest into something then you should take the same resources you consumed and allocate them to someone who can make your investment grow.  This is real investment. 

Mining only makes sense to existing holders if it buys them decentralization in which case mining is the cost of doing business.  Mining pools prove that mining does not buy you decentralization and instead mining results in a kind of centralization that is very hard for the average user to overcome because the barriers to entry are so high.  Any attempt to clone a new coin would result in immediate takeover by the existing mining pools if they so desired so long as a technology it centralizes control in a way that is hard for new coins to escape from.   No one can release a sha256 coin without the ASIC miners owning it all.

There are many GPU and CPU coins that can be mined to earn crypto currency which can then be traded for BTS and Bitcoin.  Also you can still mine PTS so this is only a question about how to allocate BitShares after launch.

For everyone who thinks there must be a non-monetary means to invest in a currency, do you think it would make sense for the Federal Reserve to announce a new stimulus package where they will print new dollars for anyone who can find hashes on their computer?   Would this be good or bad for the economy?  If it would be bad for the dollar economy why would it be good for the BitShare economy?   What about providing a non-monetary means to invest in APPL?  Should Apple issue new shares to people who mine just so they have an opportunity to get involved?  Would this be more equitable? 

As far as I can tell the change described by bytemaster can be thought of as changing the BTS supply from 20 million to 4 million and replacing mining via consumption of resources to mining through reallocation of those same resources to the development of the BTS ecosystem.   In this case the PTS social contract is entirely unchanged.   The only thing that has been changing is BitShares which in turn does affect PTS price, but I think it is better for PTS for BitShares to have the best possible design and implementation.

I look forward to seeing the details so I can invest! 

The way you get cheat-free marketing is to make people stakeholders and put their own money on the line.  When their money is on the line they have financial incentive to do GOOD marketing.

If you pay someone to post on forums etc that is called astro-turfing.  People will do it without any care in the world.

If you try to manage all of these credits, reputation points, etc then the whole process becomes political and people fight about what is good or bad marketing.

Equal opportunity investment, easy investment, anonymous investment, no minimum investment, is the best way to allow people to profit and promote solid advertising.   

The last thing this movement needs is to attract more people with the mindset that they can get a free lunch by performing questionably valuable services.

 

*Grabs Popcorn* 

It seems to me that these angelshares, would also be a DAC, so as a holder of protoshares i am also entitled to angelshares, which will also get me bitshares???

I don't see any reason why AngelShares needs to be traded on a blockchain.  Angel Investors should not be day-trading and their funds should be committed until the DACs launche.   With this setup Invictus could simply publish an AngelAddress on the BTC or PTS blockchains and have daily auctions documented right on the blockchain.  This would be public, easily trackable, and a simple script could scrape the bitcoin blockchain to calculate the genesis block for future chains.

Suppose they issued 10,000 AngelShares per day by auction.  This would establish a price and also make it more difficult for large investors to dump in all at once.    Early investors get better prices than later investors assuming Invictus does a good job with the money.  The difficulty of wining shares in the auction every day would increase proportional to demand the success of Invictus.  If they screw up their funds get cut off. 

I think it would be a fun and exciting way to issue new shares in future DACs with almost 0 overhead. 

The daily auctions would create excitement and opportunity for the little guy to take advantage of price dips when the big guys are not buying.  It would be a whole new kind of mining with all the excitement of an auction and the attempts to game the bidding by doing ebay style sniping at the last second. 

Make it fun for the little guy, give him the advantage of being able to follow the day-to-day variance while the big-money is too busy to follow auctions that closely or attempt sniping to get a deal.

Quote from: lzr1900 on December 16, 2013, 02:47:40 am

Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!

If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.

If they can raise capital and increase PTS stake of BitShares hell yeah it should go up.  I am torn between buying these cheap prices or just waiting for AngelShares and getting them even cheaper while everyone else figures this out.   

It is obvious that PTS must be mined as planned and must represent at least 10% of the total money supply in BitShares.    Bytemaster has conceded this point.

Bytemaster said his friends and family purchased PTS... do you think he would intentionally do anything that would devalue those PTS?    He also said his plan was to maximize PTS value which would make since considering Invictus is heavily invested in PTS.   So I don't see him devaluing PTS intentionally.

The problem is that most people lack knowledge of how shares of company stock work. 

Post-money valuation is the value of a company after an investment has been made. This value is equal to the sum of the pre-money valuation and the amount of new equity.[1]
External investors, such as venture capitalists and angel investors, will use a pre-money valuation to determine how much equity to demand in return for their cash injection to an entrepreneur and his/her startup company. The implied post-money valuation is calculated as the dollar amount of investment divided by the equity stake gained in an investment.

New equity is issued by diluting existing equity but the post-money valuation of the original holders usually increases as a result of the capital infusion even though their percentage ownership has decreased.   

So right now there is $500K backing 1.2 million PTS.    If Invictus were to raise $20M over 10 weeks by substituting a new form of mining then there would be $20.5M backing  2.2 million PTS2.   It seems to me that this would dramatically increase the value of existing PTS.

So you all need to stop looking at the PTS supply side of the equation and look at the fact that this is a capital infusion that greatly favors PTS holders at the expense of those greedy angels who are only asking for 50% in exchange for 20M.