A couple of things:
I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.
What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?
Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.
I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer.
So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?
The opportunity appears now.
some more clarification please?
Once Bytemaster & his trusted mates discovered the "secret sauce recipe" and realized how to gain orders of magnitude faster penetration into the market by exploiting certain opportunities that have recently appeared, it became clear that the opportunities had to be seized.
By now people should know that what they are investing in is the products of a very agile team that will stay ahead of the competition chiefly because of that agility. We make no apologies for playing to that strength. Those that are able to HODL will be rewarded. Those who can't will fall off at the hairpin turns. We will always have people who have climbed on board for the wrong reasons and they are the ones who will eject during the high-G maneuvers. Buy when they sell.
If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. 
So basically those that don't just go with the flow and "
" every decision without all the actual information behind those decision are the "wrong" investors and good riddance if they leave because they actually want to invest based on facts and not vague cryptic comments that tell them nothing?
If we are going to debate what the best course of action is as a community then let's get all the facts on the table, otherwise this is all a very pointless exercise. If there is some secret that somehow makes sense of you guys turning everything on it's head then let's hear it. If you can't divulge it and instead want the community to go along with the "new world order" you're proposing then don't propose it and just do it.
Why bother engaging the community only to respond to inquisitive comments with three paragraphs that essentially boil down to "just trust us, we aren't going to explain the information we have that we are claiming is justification for the decisions we want to make, if that's a problem then you're not a good fit and get out"?
Listen, if you guys can't divulge some secret and you think you know best, then don't pretend like you want the community's input. The community's input is worthless if you don't give them the same background information you have. This whole episode feels like a charade. If you guys know best and you want to build your DAC based on information you don't want to share just tell everyone how it's gonna be and to suck it up.
Quite frankly there is a fairly large portion of this community that will rubber stamp whatever new decision you roll out anyway.
BEFORE
I3: "Multiple chains/DACs that compete will scale better and out perform any single multi function DAC"
Community: "Brilliant!"
LATER
I3: "Consolidating DACs into a single DAC will simplify things and help tie up loose ends"
Community: "Brilliant!"
BEFORE
I3: "We are going to create a token that when bought will give shares of the multitude of DACs to be developed"
Community: "Genius!"
LATER
I3: "Even though we've just begun, let's end that token that is supposed to give shares in future DACs, further let's just do one main DAC after all, thereby mostly invalidating the entire concept behind PTS and AGS"
Community: "Genius!"
...etc
Maybe it's true that there is some secret that makes it a clear win for you guys to make all the proposed changes. I'm not saying this is the wrong move from a technical or market standpoint, I don't have all the information to even begin to make that judgement. What this does say for sure, without a doubt, is that any prospective investor in the Bitshares ecosystem should absolutely not invest based on the technology or code but instead in the I3 team, because anything planned or stated is obviously not something to be counted on and could and likely will change 180 degrees at some point.
I really hope that this secret is as big and awesome as you hint it is so that it will hopefully offset the huge hit to your guys' credibility.
In case the above didn't make it obvious, I'm against this proposal. Not based on it's technical merits but because I don't like being solicited as an investor for something only for it to be changed so fundamentally after my investment is made.
I get that this is an evolving environment and that there are a ton of variables at play. it's one reason I like the thought of multiple DACs and multiple chains. BTSX was planned with a fixed cap and a burn so that the total supply shrunk over time. My investment in BTSX reflected what I thought about those decisions. Sounds like other DACs were planning to incorporate some kinds of dilution schemes. Great, now I can invest in those DACs based on those merits. Then over time it can be determined which features were successful or not.
Similarly my investment in PTS and AGS reflected my desire to gain at least some minimum stake in all new DACs. Had I known there would be one DAC then I wouldn't have wasted buying PTS for a smaller stake in BTSX just to have those supposedly liquid tokens bought out at low prices to be rolled into the new single DAC planned.
As for dilution I get why it could be good for the DAC, IN THEORY. Quite frankly I just don't trust that additional BTSX are going to benefit the DAC as much as they will hurt it. Nobody can guarantee that the use of new funds will bring as much value as they cost to original investors. I haven't seen a detailed proposal of exactly how and where those funds will be distributed and how it will be tracked to know exactly how much capital those extra funds brought in. Just because some other standard companies use dilution successfully, doesn't automatically mean it will be the same for Bitshares.
Luckily I do have some trust in the I3 team, but if that's all I have to go on then this investment feels like an even greater gamble than before. Obviously I'll just have to let go of trying to weigh the technical decisions made because they will likely get reversed soon after in spectacular fashion possibly due to information I'll be told exists but am not privy to.
There really isn't anything wrong with I3 determining the course of their products, I think I'm most annoyed that it's presented as if the community's input matters and that big news are dangled but not divulged. I guess in the end just keep trying to build the most successful DAC or DACs you can, good luck.
Show Posts
