31
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 18, 2014, 02:52:55 am »Quote
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. ~Bill Cosby
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.
32
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 17, 2014, 12:18:45 pm »No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.
But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.
I see there is 15% for marketing and development, 20% for crowdfunding, 10% reserved. Basically you are alloting 45% for development and marketing under various heads. Thats a huge percentage, most of which can be used to increase the stakes to keep everyone happy. In fact, as you are being funded by AGS funds, one can claim that the 20% crowdfunding should go straight to AGS, and you still will have 25% left for more funding.
At this point the only solution that would work is the one which doesn't decrease anybody's stake. You can increase AGS and PTS allocation, but not decrease BTS, as that will lead to another round of arguments. Good thing you have kept 45% reserved for development and marketing.
Why not just fork PLAY, and give the allocation as you like, that's better.
33
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 17, 2014, 11:55:53 am »Regarding poll, do you have any better solutions to represent the community consensus?
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.
But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.
See my edit in the above post, the poll is worthless. The solution? Ask the mods to remove all votes from members who signed up in the last 24 hours and make it so that only older users can vote. If that is not possible ask everybody to post their votes rather than vote.
As sumantso request, Moderate, please remove all votes from members who signed up in the last 24 hours and make it so that only older users can vote.
Thank you.
Hope that this forum have this feature...
34
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 17, 2014, 11:47:58 am »This is alway the situation that can not please everyone, let's the community decide it through poll.
You're still relying on the poll? Look at the new user signups, just registering to vote. I am baffled that you don't get the simple fact that anybody with economic interests will register a lot of shills and vote.
Besides, the poll is not exhaustive, there should be other options.
Also, have you thought of allotting more and then paying through dilution? I3 was basically following your model earlier and then changed to the current one, why repeat the same?
Regarding poll, do you have any better solutions to represent the community consensus?
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.
But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.
35
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 17, 2014, 11:35:08 am »AGS created the toolkit. AGS gave Hackfisher his grant.
Why did not AGS get higher allocation? 1. Hackfisher did not know that his whole grant came from AGS. 2. Hackfisher thought that one were supposed to drop on BTS. 3. People have an inbred idea that PTS and AGS always should get the same allocation.
Conclusion: AGS should get a higher allocation than both PTS and BTS.
If there will be a new proposal, agree that AGS should get a higher allocation than PTS, but I think BTS holders will not agree giving AGS higher allocation than BTS.
This is alway the situation that can not please everyone, let's the community decide it through poll.
And another thing I thought is AGS is a social contact between 3I and AGS holders (honoring 10% to them), not me. 10% is the expected return for all the AGS funds managed by 3I, not including other extra allocation ask to PLAY. Asking return of one thing for twice, right? People really like double spending.... Anyway, I respect community consensus and PLAY team members opinions, I would be glad to give AGS more allocation if they agree.
36
DAC PLAY / Re: Official Announcement for BitShares PLAY Allocation
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:48:47 am »For 1x BitUSD, there are 3x BTS collateral, 3x BTS and -1x USD for short, 1x USD for long.QuoteMarket orders and collateral on market will also be honored too, the allocation to collateral will be divided between long and short according to current price feed.
this means bitUSD is being share-dropped on? unlike, with sharedrop on BTS or PTS, bitUSD can be sold after snapshot for same value it is purchased for. it should be close to zero expense. and also additional benefit 1 bitUSD = 1.5 bitUSD worth of bitshares to be sharedropped on. crowd sale will raise less funds I think if people can just get playshares this way.
The long(BitUSD) will get 1x USD valued PLS whatever they are going to sell or buy(using 1x BTS to exchange).
37
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 16, 2014, 04:54:05 pm »This community has always been able to pivot and adapt to what is right. It's frustrating at times as well but that willingness to admit that the course needed to be altered is something I think is a strength not a weakness. I don't actually care about the allocation (as I have all types of Bitshares products) so much as I do that PLAY and Hackfisher seem unable or unwilling to admit a mistake and just correct it. This is troubling to me. I do not see this ending well.I admit my mistake on that I didn't know that AGS(as a social contract) is no longer being merged to BTS any more, but I also want to admit there were mess on the forum that ideas can not clearly spread out here.
So I want this decision be carefully made, so people out here, QQ groups, Exchanges btc38 discussion, and others can also know this changes.
38
DAC PLAY / Re: BitShares Play CLI Testnet #2, Enhenced Sample Dice Game
« on: November 16, 2014, 04:50:06 pm »Has the RNG problem been solved? I've read the discussion in these threads https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6764.0 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7989 . You whitepaper still seems to contain your own original proposal, which in my understanding is still vulnerable to several of the problems mentioned in those threads.The original RNG still stand for a lot of cases or requirement. And FreeTrade's idea is good, deserved to be involved in.
But remember that RNG is no longer the core feature of PLAY, because we've switched from gambling to game asset platform.
39
DAC PLAY / Re: Official Announcement for BitShares PLAY Allocation
« on: November 16, 2014, 04:36:10 pm »AGS was used to fund the "life-giving" grant to PLAY ...how could it not get the larger allocation for which BM is advocates? Doing so is simply the fairest option there is and would be respectful of those who made it possible for you to pursue your dream.Most members in our team oppose further change, that's one of the reason.
Hackerfish...please directly address why you do not support BM's, and many others, strong belief that PLAY allocation SHOULD more handsomely reward AGS over BTS. THANK YOU.
They are the people who make PLAY real, I would like to follow their concerns.
But you can still join delulo's poll, the result will be decided by the poll.
40
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 16, 2014, 04:28:43 pm »That's the best way to vote out new proposals from many at present.Bytemaster said this:I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.
"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.
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.
41
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 16, 2014, 04:05:14 pm »Bytemaster said this:Please understand that this allocation is released before the comment from bytemaster. before that, I did not know any details about the source.
"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.
42
DAC PLAY / Re: Newest changes for Bitshares Play whitepaper(additional information)
« on: November 16, 2014, 10:26:27 am »
thank you, wildpig, that is what I eager to have. 
pm me your btsx account, some tip for you.
43
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 16, 2014, 10:01:54 am »
Lastly is it the community's opinion that you won't support any DAC that hasn't gifted the proper respectful amount?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
That's the thing AGS donors have already funded PLAY. I think it's deincentivizing the kind of support that is needed the most. I've been very understanding of the changes made by I3 in the past. They always seemed to be as fair and thoughful as possible, and seemingly for the right reasons. This decision seems to be completely arbitrary. It's a departure from what I'm used to from Bitshares. So yes I do not really envision myself supporting PLAY with future funding. I'd rather just passively hold my BTS.
We need to clarify two things, first, AGS donors is used to built toolkit not PLAY (thus all the 3rd DACs need to honor AGS at least 10% instead of honoring PLAY), second, I received a grant from 3I to build PLAY but I have no idea where is come from.
44
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 16, 2014, 09:48:55 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
&
...................
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.
..............
45
DAC PLAY / Re: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?
« on: November 16, 2014, 08:16:15 am »How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.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.
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.
I received a monthly grant from bytemaster, so far, there are about 5000 * 6 dollars to fund PLAY, including 3+ months I was working for BTSX or toolkit. I do not want give any comment on this, just want to clarify things might miss-leading others(the ledger are public and can be queried on google docs).
