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 - GaltReport

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 46
181
+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.

182
General Discussion / Re: BitShares the Platform
« on: October 22, 2014, 12:44:00 am »
I love metaphors.  They can take one set of facts and completely change which branch of government wants to arrest you.  They can change you from a fan to a foe in one flash of insight.  Or vice versa.  Dr. Charles Evans had a fun time with this in his delightful classic blog post "A bitRose by any Other Name".  http://bitshares.org/a-bitrose-by-any-other-name/

Quote
Most of us, who are familiar enough with Bitcoin to explain it to others, know that there are no ‘coins’ to be ‘mined’, as if coins were mined in the real world. Ore is mined, and coins are minted, which has nothing to do with how they smell or taste. These are similes and analogies. To fixate on their literal meanings is foolish, if not disingenuous.

So now, here's a switch of metaphors for you. 
Does it change how you view things?

BitSharesX (BTSX) is shares in a DAC.  BitShares (BTS) is shares in a DAC platform.  A DAC operating system.

This DAC-OS provides (or will provide) a whole bunch of common services that are much less effective if they aren't common services:
  • A unified basket of stable, robust global currencies (bitAssets)
  • A unified set of well compensated, best-of-breed delegates.
  • A unified name system.
  • A unified secure messaging system.
  • A unified set of on and off ramps - portals to the fiat world.
  • A unified marketing message.
  • A unified consensus-based governing system.
  • A unified family of tools and wallets.
  • A unified way for newcomers to make instant friends with everyone already there.
  • A built-in venture capital system where you can compete for start-up funds - democratically.
New business developers (DAC engineers) shouldn't want to reinvent these things any more than I would want to reinvent my computer's device drivers and operating system.  And what sense would it make to have different competing operating systems, each with a subset of drivers and services?

Gee, I sure wish I could go back in time and invest in MS-DOS. 
Rats. 
An opportunity like that will never come around again.

BitShares takes the whole ecosystem into one DAC friendly free-trade zone with all the services that benefit from network effect already in place.

Any developer who wants to build a business would be crazy to stay on the outside and try to replicate that.  Even if they can pick up the toolkit and get all the functions - the network effect doesn't come with the toolkit!  You get that by joining the club.  You still run your own business with its own custom storefront and Internet presence.  You just skipped a year or two of trying to get traffic to stop by!

Now do you begin to see why it wasn't hard for the VOTE and DNS developers to Seize the Day?

You may have heard many opinions that DAC Developers would never want to honor the old AGS/PTS value proposition, but there are plenty of examples of those who did.  But that value proposition is now unassailable! 

We offer instant network effect.  Built in. 

Come build you business in our free trade zone mall.  Join us in free space.  We are the mall developers.  You can be a mall tenant.   We've got lots of real estate for you - all wired up with power, plumbing, internet and customers browsing the halls.  Add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own and get issued shares to match the value you have added to our free trade ecosystem.  And its growing network effect.

You'd be crazy to locate your business outside the mall.  Why start over?

So, the ravenous, irresistible, competition eating monster some have been fearing is now an inviting level business playing field where you can get a huge head start on your business model.  We invite you to be a member rather than a competitor.  We hold out an open hand of friendship and a value proposition that will get better and better over time.

In Free Space Real Estate, its about Location, Location, Location.

And yes, resistance is futile.
:)
+5%
So weird to see this post just as I was contemplating the genius of all these features as generic building block  features that could and will ultimately build more than the particular DAC that they were associated with to begin with...Only greater genius would be if someone had planned this from the beginning...to disguise the real plan... I'm willing to pretend that was the case!

183
The PTS snapshots for those DACs have already been taken, haven't they?  If so, the merger would not effect the share allocation at all since only the private keys are needed.

That's my understanding.

184
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:43:39 pm »
I have a very simplistic view of this whole VOTE was going to be bigger than BTSX thing.  To me, the whole VOTE "thing" is just a useful metaphor/vehicle.  Bottom line is is that BM is driven to create his vision.  That vision naturally changes as we learn more.  Would be crazy if it didn't.  Whether through VOTE or simply through forking it himself...BM (or as he would say, "our competitors" which includes possibly BM himself) wants the freedom to create the vision (including the changed vision!)  that many of us bought into.  I say he's earned it.

Edit:  That's why I don't pay too much attention to the VOTE analysis.

185
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:30:22 pm »
Quote
2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc. 

Is the vesting period for btsx, dns, Vote, AGS and PTS?
I thought it was only for AGS and PTS.

If so, there would be an serious incentive to keep BTSX on centralized exchanges.
Because I guess they would simply drop the x, and continue trading.
And so the vesting period would be avoided.
please clarify this.  I ASSUME this doesn't apply to current BTSX holders.  You wouldn't lock their FREE (as in freedom) shares would you?  That's not acceptable.  Couple have asked so BM please clarify it's only for those that are being merged (PTS/AGS ?).

That aside, go for it!

186
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 ?

Man 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.

I think Bitshares was "The Big Idea" for most of us.

187
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, future DACs (the functionality and/or actual separate DACs) will emerge from BTS.  it's not destroyed, only transferred.

You get more value in the form of BTSX but less from future snapshots which is why people invested in PTS/AGS to begin with.  That whole thing is flushed down to 17% or whatever of what it would have been.  So now PTS gets 17% of 20% instead of 20%.  Thats what PTS looses.

ah, I see.  There is a bit of a difference but that is very hard to calculate.  It seems very theoretical.  You don't know if the value added (new DAC-like functinality/app) to the new whole (BTS) is worth more than the sum of the separate DACS.  Some of them may not have been successful on their own and would benefit from being part of BTS or possibly the reverse I suppose.


188
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, future DACs (the functionality and/or actual separate DACs) will emerge from BTS.  it's not destroyed, only transferred.

189
General Discussion / Re: What is the master plan for BTS?
« on: October 21, 2014, 12:12:48 am »
Every DPOS DAC have delegates as the only source of authority. I'm not sure if DNS is even live, but if it is, then it is the delegates, and ONLY the delegates (and thus shareholders) that have the final say in what happens. Like everyone else, Toasts influence will be proportional exactly to his stake in DNS.

But is it DNS stakeholders or BTSX stakeholders that get to vote?

I think I saw in another post that Toast is talking to BM about joining.  That would be good but not sure how that would work since it's kinda live.

190
Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots. 

All of the value that PTS had shaved off during snapshots is made up with the fact that they GOT SHARES of DACs.  For example, DNS and MUSIC.


People who just bought BTSX did NOT get MUSIC.  If you just say "PTS should be valued more highly", then you basically give the person who bought PTS both new BTS AND MUSIC, while giving the person who bought BTSX only the BTS. 

That is not fair.  The PTS/AGS people need to get slightly lower amounts of BTS in order to account for the fact that they got other shares in the meantime.


My proposals from the first post are roughly fair.  The 10/10/80 split is the most that should be given to PTS/AGS.  Actually it is kindof unfair in their favor, over the BTSX holders.  A 9/9/82 or 8/8/84 split is actually a lot fairer, based on market cap.  The DNS and MUSIC shares that the PTS holders have makes up for the slightly lower allocation.

Okay, now I agree with you!

191
I was happy with 10/10/80.

The problem with this averaging out stuff is that one can make the argument for PTS.  Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots.  Who really knows?  We can get into nested arguments all biased on what we want.

Try to correlate what the value of BTSX was pre-scare and do that with PTS.  Assume efficient markets.  Then chop it up like that.

or

10/10/80 as simple and straightforward.  It will save a lot of bickering and people will move on.
sounds fine with me.

192
Quote
It's amazing how far people are willing to spin things based on their own personal investment.

Obviously...And this will continue to happen until BM comes with a final proposal and seals the deal in what he thinks is the best way as usual..

True!

193
General Discussion / Re: Latenight Analysis At Merge Proposals
« on: October 20, 2014, 11:49:03 pm »
I tried to find "fair" mechanics for merge between BTSX, AGS and PTS. I've put some random thoughts and ideas and I've reached to *something*.
This completely ignores the price of any asset at any time. It concentrates only on promises.

Let A,B,C,D,E are people who bought 1% each of AGS/PTS/BTSX at pre feb28 and post feb28 like this:

pre feb28
PTS      AGS
A-1%   B-1%

post feb28
PTS      AGS      BTSX
C-1%   D-1%   E-1%

Each person was rewarded stake as follows:

BTSX Chain
A = 0.5%
B = 0.5%

DNS/NOTE/VOTE (too complex to even include them)

Each person was promised the following stake:
BTSX Chain Descendant
A = 0.5%
B = 0.5%
C = 0%
D = 0%
E = 1%
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

DAC
A = 0.1%
B = 0.1%
C = 0.1%
D = 0.1%
E = 0%
DEV = 80% (no dilution?)

BM's proposal essentially tries to combine DACs and BTSX Descendants into one MERGED DAC.
Given the different stakes for each party this is very difficult to be done "fair".
However we can attempt to imagine how the merge would look like. Lets first transform the idea of DAC OLD so that all the funds are allocated to PTS/AGS.
Lets imagine the dev decides to reward A,B,C,D with ALL his shares and rely on dilution for development.
This should equal to what feb28 snapshot did - 50%/50% to AGS/PTS.
It should look like this:
DAC NO-DEV
A = 0.5%
B = 0.5%
C = 0.5%
D = 0.5%
E = 0%
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

We want to combine DACs and BTSX descendants into one.
Lets merge the DAC NO-DEV and BTSX Chain Descendant into one COMBINED DAC while keeping all the promises.
Lets assume both future DACs and BTSX Descendants have equal potential for growth.
Then we can average out the stake for every actor.
This is more or less a combination of past promises to PTS/AGS/BTSX holders:
MERGED DAC NO-DEV and BTSX Chain Descendant (=AKA merged promises)
A = 0.5%
B = 0.5%
C = 0.25% (C & D were not getting any stake in BTSX Descendants but had 0.5% in DACs)
D = 0.25% (C & D were not getting any stake in BTSX Descendants but had 0.5% in DACs)
E = 0.5% (E was not getting any stake in DACs but was getting 1% in BTSX descendants)
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

The above shows what each actor should get if the AGS/PTS/BTSX promise is kept merged/averaged out.

What does BM's proposal looks like (using current prices):

DAC & BTSX Chain Descendant (BM's PROPOSAL)
A = 0.5% (0.4% (BTSX rewarded by feb28, diluted by 20%) + 0.1% (total PTS stake))
B = 0.5% (0.4% (BTSX rewarded by feb28, diluted by 20%) + 0.1% (total AGS stake))
C = 0.1%
D = 0.1%
E = 0.8% (1% diluted by 20%)
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

It is too late for me to properly distinguish between bullshit and sanity so please ignore it if it is the first kind.

Not sure about all the math but I'll accept the end result!

194
It's amazing how far people are willing to spin things based on their own personal investment.

195
Edit: Just wondering what difference will people see ?  In their wallet or in marketcap type numbers?  Will they see less BTSX in their wallet is really the question?

Your balance will remain the same. Market cap will increase by several million. Your balance will increase when you claim your PTS/AGS allocated shares.

Okay, thanks.  That's what I thought. Sounds good.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 46