Quote from: sumantso on November 16, 2014, 04:09:25 pm

Quote from: HackFisher on November 16, 2014, 04:05:14 pm

Quote from: godzirra on November 16, 2014, 03:11:07 pm

Bytemaster said this:

"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher.    So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me.  10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."

So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.

I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.

Anybody can register and vote on this poll. This is useless unless one of the mods makes it so that newly registered members can't vote.

That's the best way to vote out new proposals from many at present.

Why are we voting on your misunderstanding of the so called merger? Just admit you misunderstood the social contract.

Quote from: godzirra on November 16, 2014, 05:38:44 am

Well thanks for at least listening to me gripe.

Really where does this 35% BTS allocation come from? And who are the people who feel like that's anywhere near a reasonable amount? I haven't heard a single reason why it should be so outsized? Other than personal gain I suppose. I have quite a bit of BTS as well, I just find this allocation to be completely ridiculous. I'm not trying to offend anyone, especially not Hackfisher, but if anything it should be weighted more to where you got your initial funding from. That point cannot be stressed enough.

Hackfisher please reward those people who invested in your project! BTS holders are not going to change much of anything based on you changing the allocation. It is completely unexpected that you would allocate so much to BTS.

It based on the merger proposal, I thought the AGS/PTS (including the AGS after 2.28) has already being merged to BTS, and I remember there is a post mentioning that 3rd DACs should honoring BTS instead of AGS/PTS now, but I can not find it anymore. (someone has the link, please pm it to me)

At last, we decide to honor all of three, but if most people (> 50%) involved in this poll util Wednesday 12:00PM(UTC)  think that we need a new proposal for AGS, I will definitely give a new proposal (a promise to delulo on yesterday's mumble).

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg135971#msg135971

&

Quote from: bytemaster on October 19, 2014, 03:03:59 am

...................

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition. 
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there. 

..............

Hackfisher if you're acting based on this post I think you're mistaken. AGS was not merged! And Bytemaster himself said that the allocation should be changed. This quote is not applicable to this allocation. It was a rejected merger proposal. Also to make this decision based on a vote is even more ridiculous because people will just vote for their own personal gain not necessarily what is right. What a joke. Why is this so difficult? I don't understand.

Basically how I understand this decision process is that:
1. Hackfisher doesn't understand how PTS and AGS were never merged.
2. The community is going to vote their pocketbooks, regardless of what is the right thing to do.

Well thanks for at least listening to me gripe.

Really where does this 35% BTS allocation come from? And who are the people who feel like that's anywhere near a reasonable amount? I haven't heard a single reason why it should be so outsized? Other than personal gain I suppose. I have quite a bit of BTS as well, I just find this allocation to be completely ridiculous. I'm not trying to offend anyone, especially not Hackfisher, but if anything it should be weighted more to where you got your initial funding from. That point cannot be stressed enough.

Hackfisher please reward those people who invested in your project! BTS holders are not going to change much of anything based on you changing the allocation. It is completely unexpected that you would allocate so much to BTS.

Quote from: godzirra on November 16, 2014, 02:14:23 am

Quote from: sumantso on November 15, 2014, 07:36:12 pm

Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.

That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.

How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.

If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Angelshares were used as a grant for funding the PLAY dac. There are millions of dollars that were donated at a very real risk to fund development. That kind of support should be valued just as highly as the network effect of BTS holders. BTS holders should not be getting 3 times the allocation in my opinion. The Pre Feb28 windfall was a huge gift. Why are the same people getting a larger share this time? It makes no sense! Not because of a contracted obligation but because this community should recognize those that gifted thousands of BTC to make PLAY possible. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If fairness doesn't interest you how about the basic principle of reciprocity?

The only argument I hear in opposition is once again to stop nagging and just be quiet. Which is an interesting argument. One that I will weigh when considering future support of this community.

 

You're making all the sense in the world. But in here you're just bitching, lol.

Interesting. You guys are quite the community here. Good to know.

The main point I'm making is that there should be a correct understanding of the social consensus in order to determine any allocation. I think Hackfisher is under the impression that AGS and PTS have been merged and so 10% is more than enough.

I find this allocation to be ridiculous. Post Feb 28 holders are supposed to be rewarded for making much of this possible. Instead Btsx gets another huge allocation. Of course Hack fisher can do whatever he wants. But it is absurd in my opinion.