You are arguing solely from the BTSX point of view.
You personally advertised DNS/KeyID as one of the core DACs before.
Toast was maintaining it, he contacted exchanges to start trading.
You explicitly mentioned on the forum that the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
Toast assured anyone that the funds will be preserved!
And your argument is that you could have copied toast work anyway and "DNS" should be lucky that you didn't do that.
I guess my main point is that I think you also have a responsibility for DNS as people invested in it because it was part of your vision.
You can not let people believe that they invest in a DAC which you are also behind and then tell them later screw you I could have copied that anyway.
Let me know if I missed something here.
Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate it.
It is very challenging for people to put themselves in other peoples shoes.... especially when people have competing interest.
1) I put my hat on as a DNS holder and asked... would I abandon the project at X price?
2) I put my hat on as a BTSX holder and asked... would I buy the project at X price?
3) I then put my hat on as someone in our ecosystem....
When I put on my BTSX hat I say, implement everything and compete with our larger network effect... don't buyout anyone, just add dilution to pay for work.. I probably wouldn't pay more than 1%
When I put on my DNS hat I say.... can I compete with BTSX and if so how... I probably could, but I was just share dropped BTS and must decide whether I think I can grow DNS faster or BTS faster and devote my time and energy accordingly. I could probably be bought out for less than 3%
When I put on my "individual hat" I say... "every other project is so young that they get a combined 20% in the larger pie" because none of them had their primary features implemented yet.
So it was really about dividing that 20% between AGS/PTS/DNS/VOTE as far as I was concerned. Recognizing that 90% of the stakeholders in these 4 are identical... the remaining stake holders are arguing over who gets what stake of 1.8% of $51M which is less than $1M in valuation that could potentially be balanced wrong. That is a *ROUNDING ERROR* in the grand scheme of things. That is with the margin of volatility / spread in the markets estimation of the value of all systems.
I think this is correct on all accounts.
I understand frustration because things do not appear (remember, this allocation is just a proposal) to be playing out the way investors initially thought. But here is my issue with the division this has caused.
1. Plenty of organizations pivot in order to make themselves more profitable in the long run. If you buy shares at an IPO, you are at the mercy of the majority of the other shareholders when they vote on the Board of Directors and how to move forward with company decisions. It is just one of the risks of playing the game.
2. We obviously all got on board cause we believe in Dan and his ability to make difficult decision. Anyone who has followed him closely should trust that he isn't talking about free markets, decentralization, etc. just to blow smoke up our asses then flip things to make a pretty penny for himself and a few larger investors. It is important to keep the bigger picture in mind. We are uniting for a movement that will provide for a crypto ecosystem that BTC was unable to provide. it will be a rocky start, but fighting about this small of a portion of the total pie will not help propel Bitshares to the game changer we know it can be.
It is important to make sure things are as "fair" as possible, but at a certain point we need to come together. As with any investment (equities, fixed income, land, or your personal career), you have to be wiling to endure some setbacks as long as you are monitoring progress and are still moving in the direction of the ultimate goal.
I fully trust Dan and am certain that he has our best interests in mind - if he didn't, he wouldn't risk disclosing Bitshares' next moves on an open forum and he would simply implement them without a care for public opinion. This project is bigger than any one of us and it will not advance if we are unwilling to come to terms with that.
Show Posts
