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.
Can you not just merge the market caps and get it done?Market caps are massively volatile though, if the exchanges don't have a lot of volume, then someone could pump the hell out of the small DACs before the merger happens.
To me the proposal looks to be a simple change from new DACs honoring PTS/AGS to also now honoring BTSX; coupled with drawing together the devs and value from certain DACs and maximising their contributions, all then becomes within a new BTS. The benefits far out way the losses.
Keep it simple, get it done!
Yeah, I agree with 75% PTS and 25% AGS. I don't agree with giving DNS/VOTE as much as people have been suggesting - they weren't even fully functioning DACS.Wait.. yeah.. AGS was actually donations to the DAC creators.. making it liquid now would be like creating new AGS funds out of thin air.. I'd prefer if AGS was just wiped out - AGS holders have already been given shares in BTSX/DNS/VOTE/MUSIC/LOTTO - why should they now be given their funds back?!
What about future DACs? AGS was to raise funds for future DACs but in an ill-liquid fashion thus you recieved a premium. By merging into BTS then AGS will be given future allocation to all DACs in a liquid form.. something that is NEW in the contract for AGS... and one that may have had everyone completely get into AGS knowing this before hand... I held my PTS knowing that more DACs would come along and it would be more valuable as the platform becomes more valuable...
Thus if I had known that AGS would become liquid before Bitshares took off I would have converted all my PTS to AGS which I didn't do knowingly.
According to : http://wiki.bitshares.org/images/e/e7/Distribution_snapshots.jpg
Seems like the only difference is that AGS was not liquid thus offered at a premium to PTS. So I would imagine over time as new interesting DACs were released that PTS would rise to a higher valuation than the average AGS price was over time because the desire to get into a DAC that is successful in a successful environment would make money.
At the very least if this were to happen I would like to see the PTS allocation(based on market price of today) equivalent to the average price of AGS.. thus not a 50/50 split but based on the average price... so if PTS was half of the price of AGS then it should be 75% PTS / 25% AGS... because markets work in cycles and as soon as bitshares took off the desire to get into future dacs would rise thus causing more demand for PTS.
PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.
Yeah, I realize that pts/ags is the snapshot chain, but PTS is ridiculously volatile - immediately after a snapshot it crashes. Not only that, but PTS is a POW crypto, pretty naff imo. I fail to see how distributing a small chunk (10%) to a snapshot of another dac would make it a ponzi scheme.. It'd be like buying users from one dac for a small introductory share each. PTS offers us nothing, BTSX offers us far more.Can we snapshot other dacs instead of just pts/ags?
The social consensus is that a min of 10% goes to both ags & pts, but why not take a snapshot of btsx and other trusted bitshares dacs? It would seriously help distribution and also bring a lot more users to new dacs.
I would caution against this. I realize this is kind of a slippery slope argument - If we keep snapshotting one dac after another, it's going to turn into a situation very similar to a ponzi scheme, where the true value is always a DAC or two down the line.
AGS and PTS were explicitly advertised as being vehicles for DAC snapshots, so there's no problem with those, but BTSX was never advertised as such.
