Quote from: 天籁 on June 23, 2014, 02:03:26 am

You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!

Quote from: toast on June 23, 2014, 01:56:50 am

Quote

For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.

Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.

I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.

You have stake in them all.

What I would really like to see is this:

1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.

The challenges with this approach is:

1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates

You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.

"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?

To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."

If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.

Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.

Does the delegate pay under the targeted scheme seem just a *little* high??

Giving delegates 44% of supply in the first year alone and nearly doubling initial supply in the first year doesn't seem so good As a potential investor in Bitshares, I'd be shocked and disappointed if this were the case.

Hey, paying delegates for their services is good, but it's easy to cross the line into overpaying. Then shareholders, who should be the true beneficiaries of the transaction fees, will be shafted. Bitshares would be definitely getting a ton of flak by the broader community for being unfair and not living up to its own goal of placing the dividends in the hands of shareholders. It would cause a LOT of internal strife not to mention rent-seeking 

Delegates are like the board of directors. You want to pay them a modest amount, but not too much. Many soon to be delegates already have the AGS, PTS incentives to make them want to help the network, so not paying them crazy amounts shouldn't make this "secret weapon" less effective to any significant degree.

Early on In the Bitshares.org video: "but what if you could remove those expenses, and give the money saved to the shareholders?" If Bitshares doesn't live up to that vision, it will be shunned, collapse under its greed, and fail.

I think deflation or steady pay schemes are the only way to go. For the foreseeable future, delegates should not earn but a fraction of the fees for doing their job.

I am undecided please convince me of either way.

+ More BitShares X easier invest. Instead of buying 0.00001, you can buy 1 and it can be seen a less risky option. (DogeCoin)
+ Less BitShares X increases value due the limited amount and speculation.  (Bitcoin)
+ Both are limited regardless.
+ With More BitShares X 1 = 1$ you can mentally calculate investment or trades in assets.

The argument for NOT using 4 million shares is very simple.

With only 4 million at launch, you're going to create liquidity problems and also cut down participation.
If the starting price is $20, $50, $100, whatever, right off the bat, Bitshares X will have the 2nd highest price on coinmarketcap, which will turn away a lot of possible investors. Then the little guy is going to think, "Man, how much higher can it go? I'm better off buying one of the other altcoins for $0.10. I'll have a better chance at doubling my price, or making a better % return." Most people don't think too much about market cap, they only look at share price and % return.

One of the things people are saying here is that it's important to get critical mass & wide participation, especiAlly from non-crypto folks, not just crypto geeks. I'm telling you, that will be much harder if the starting price at launch is too high. The launch should be the marketing, distribution, awareness, liquidity phase. Crypto folks and People new to crypto will be much more likely to test the water if the price per share of X early on is not too high. Plus, these non-crypto folks are especially important because they can spread the word better to people who don't already know about btc/Bitshares.

Sure, Bitcoin has a price in the $100s, but it was not always so. Bitcoin started in the sub-pennies, just like most new coins do today. How many other coins are above even $10? Maybe Bitshares X would someday be successful and get to $10, $50, $100+ price range, but trying to start at that level at launch with only 4 million shares is not a smart move.

I vote for somewhere in the range of 100 million to 1 billion shares of X at launch.

Has the # of shares in Bitshare X been decided on yet?

IMO, 4 million is too small. If X ever has any hope of being much bigger than Litecoin's market cap, with only 4 mill shares the share price would have to be like $100+, which would scare away the avg joe. Investors are people, not computers 

Why not make life easier and start with 40 million shares? Heck why not 100 million shares?