Coinmarketcap is not updating the price for exchanges that have switched form the symbol BTSX to BTS.

For example, bter now uses the BTS symbol, and coinmarketcap is no longer updating for the Bitshares trade on bter.

Anyone in contact with coinmarketcap who can let them know to switch to BTS?

With the addition of the pay reward halving every 4 years, there will now be an absolute hard cap on the number of bitshares.


Starting BTS total: 2.5 billion.    This comes from current BTSX (2 billion), plus stake allocated to PTS, AGS, DNS, and VOTE (500 million total).

Starting reward per year: 157,680,000.    (50 BTS per block * 6 blocks per minute * 60 minutes per hour * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year).

4 years at this rate is 630,720,000.  After that, the reward halves, and in the next 4 years, we add half that.  And so on.   The total number of bitshares that will EvER be paid to delegates is capped at 1,261,440,000.    (In reality it will be less, because many delegates are low pay delegates).



Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:

Nov 2014:  2,500,000,000  (maximum 6.3% a year inflation)
Nov 2018:  3,130,720,000  (maximum 3.1% a year inflation)
Nov 2022:  3,446,080,000  (maximum 1.6% a year inflation)
Nov 2026:  3,603,760,000  (maximum 0.8% a year inflation)
Nov 2030:  3,682,600,000  (maximum 0.4% a year inflation)
Forever:     3,761,440,000


Also, every share of BTS that is ever burned reduces all of these numbers by 1!  So every time a share of BTSX is ever burned for trasnaction fees, etc, this cap goes down!

Every time any delegate ever receives less than a full pay block reward, the hard cap goes down!

For example, we are going to have many 3% pay delegates, in with a few full pay delegates who are developers, marketing team, etc.
Every single time one of those 3% pay delegates signs a block, these numbers go down by 48.5, because that is 48.5 BTS that cannot be created (because the opportunity to pay the full 50 BTS was missed).



So what is the reality of how many BTS there will be?  Significantly less than these numbers!  These are a hard cap which occurs only if there are 101 full pay delegates and no shares of BTSX are burned ever.  Both of those are not true, and thus the actual amount of BTS will be much lower.

And then we will all be happy! 

Now that we have had some more time to analyze, I would like to make a counterproposal to Bytemaster's proposal which I believe is more fair.

First off, my stake is currently 100% in BTSX.  My proposal is not made to help my stake, but rather to help out those who I feel have been hurt in this allocation. 

We do not want a wounded community going forward, in which a majority of people made out just fine, but a significant minority of people are grievously hurt by the merger.


I hope that everyone can try to look at this proposal in a fair and rational way, and analyze its merits.


First, lets look at what each party gained and lost in the original proposal:

80% to BTSX:  Gains the benefit of becoming the superDAC, loses due to some dilution.  Price initially dropped and then recovered to about where it was before the proposal. 

3% to VOTE: Vote is basically just another allocation to AGS and PTS holders, but it is to only those who held AGS/PTS prior to its august snapshot.   This is *almost* the same group of people who hold AGS, PTS, and DNS, but not exactly. 

7% to AGS:  Gains the benefit of having liquidity eventually, where it previously would never have had liquidity!  Is down maybe 10% or so compared to the price that AGS 'should' have been valued at, if we assume that AGS is worth the same value as PTS was.

7% to PTS: Loses the benefit of liquidity, is instead subject to a lockout period.  Is down maybe 10% or so since the announcement.

3% to DNS: Loses the benefit of liquidity, is instead subject to a lockout period. 
During the release of DNS, prior to the announcement, DNS shares had traded in a range from about 180 to 400 satoshis.  This is a huge range, obviously.  At the time of the announcement, it was in the low 200s.   At the very least, one should value DNS at around 180 satoshis per share, which was the lowest point that it traded at.

It is true that there was "not much" liquidity in DNS, as it is small.   However, there was a reasonable amount for a patient trader who didn't simply limit buy or sell millions of shares at once.

DNS is down around 40-50% or so since the announcement.  It is roughly 30% lower than its lowest price before the announcement.

Toast has stated in this forum that the allocation to DNS was unfair.  Bytemaster has admitted in this forum that he thought he was giving DNS an allocation roughly equal or better than what he and toast had agreed to, but that he had made a mistake!


Summary:

BTSX: does fine.

VOTE: really just more shares to almost exactly the same people who currently have PTS/AGS.

AGS: loses slightly BUT gains liquidity, that it was supposed to never have. 

PTS: loses slightly AND loses liquidity.

DNS: loses greatly AND loses liquidity.



My solution to these issues:

1) We need to give DNS a slightly greater stake.  At a 4% stake instead of 3%, DNS rises in value to at least close to the low point it traded at prior to the announcement.   

2) We should not arbitrarily limit liquidity of DNS and PTS, which were already liquid.  We should also enforce a small cost onto AGS for the benefit of having its liquidity restrictions removed.

3) I believe that the total stake for AGS+PTS+VOTE+DNS needs to be 20%  (This is the "10% to AGS/10% to PTS" rule).  These are all *mostly* the same holders, with a small difference based on people who traded DNS or PTS on exchanges. 


Therefore I would make the following proposal:

80% to BTSX, no lockout.  Just as it is now.  This is necessary for community buy-in, most of us are BTSX holders.

2.5% to VOTE.  2 year restriction on liquidity.  The additional percentage I am allocating to DNS has got to come from somewhere.  DNS and VOTE were the exact same snapshot, so in changing the allocation from one to the other, I am not effecting anyone who has not messed with their shares.  It is ONLY effecting those who sold or bought DNS on an exchange!   My new allocation will ease the pain of those who traded DNS.

6.5% to AGS.  2 year restriction on liquidity.   AGS gets a tiny amount less, because it needs to pay something for the liquidity gain we are giving it. 

7% to PTS.  NO liquidity restriction.  PTS already got a 10% haircut, reducing its liquidity is unfair.

4% to DNS.  NO liquidity restriction.  This Makes DNS mostly whole again, and means that it only gets a maybe 10% drop from its prices before the announcement, not 40%+.  Also, there is no reason to hurt DNS holders further with the lockout period.



Summary of how this effects people:

To people who held AGS/PTS and did nothing with their shares:  They are not effected!  Since they hold all of the different shares already, the fact that one is slightly hurt and another helped doesn't end up changing their final result.

Note that someone who had AGS only and not PTS loses a *tiny* amount.  But this is a fair price to pay in exchange for now having liquidity of their AGS!


To people who bought PTS in order to have liquidity:  They do not get their liquidity unfairly removed from them.


To people who bought DNS on an exchange:  They do not get a massive loss.  They get only a small loss, and are not going to have hurt feelings forever over this.  They also do not have their liquidity unfairly removed from them.



Who does my proposal help: 
DNS buyers who were severely hurt by the original proposal.  Slight help to PTS holders who were hurt by the original proposal.
Who does proposal hurt: 
Slight loss to AGS holders.  However, I feel this is fairly compensated by the fact that now they will become liquid over a 2 year period, whereas initially this was NOT supposed to happen! 
VOTE allocation is slightly reduced.  However, VOTE is in exactly the same snapshot as DNS, so everyone in that snapshot who got VOTE is also helped by the fact that DNS is getting more.  So this really doesn't effect anyone.


Conclusion:

I hope that Bytemaster and everyone else will read this with an open mind and use reason to analyze if it is more fair than the original allocation proposal.

I am in favor of the merger no matter what, and I am not affected by this proposal.  I merely wish to see the DNS buyers (which seems to be a lot of our chinese community!) made whole and not be driven away from Bitshares as a result of this. 

I want to see everyone be able to accept the merger without hurt feelings, and without taking more than a 10% or so loss on any given type of shares.

Accepting this proposal would give Bytemaster an opportunity to mend fences with the wounded DNS holders.

Thank you!

Lets analyze and come to a general consensus about what a fair allocation of BTS (the new merged entity) to former holders of BTSX, PTS, and AGS (the merging entities) looks like.

For a summary of this merger, see:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.0


I think it is important to look at this event as you would the merging together of companies. That is, the value of BTSX, PTS, and AGS are being combined together into a new company, called Bitshares, or BTS.

The new company will initially have roughly the market value of the three companies former values put together, and it will also have the potential of all three companies.  That is, the new 'Bitshares' company will contain the features of BTSX, and will ALSO benefit from the future development that would have gone into VOTE, etc.  It will ALSO be allocated 20% of any future independant DACs that are created.
(Because it acquires the 10%+10% stake in future independent DACs that was previously 'owned' by PTS and AGS).



How does this work?  The first thing that must be agreed upon is the price that the acquiring company (BTSX, as it is the largest by far), is paying for the acquired companies, AGS and PTS.    We must figure out what the fair price is, to make all stakeholders whole.

In order to look at what a fair value is, let us look at the types of stakeholders current are:

1) Pre-Feb 28 Purchasers of PTS or AGS.

These stakeholders bought PTS or AGS before Feb 28.  They received their BTSX, and they now hold some BTSX and some AGS.  If they didnt buy or sell any BTSX, or PTS since then, then they retain the same final value of BTS no matter what, because they are evenly invested between BTSX and AGS/PTS.


2) Post Feb 28 Purchasers of PTS or AGS.

These stakeholders bought PTS or AGS after the BTSX snapshot (at a lower price than those before, since they were no longer getting BTSX out of the deal).

The greater the allocation of new shares in BTS that is given to AGS/PTS, the more they benefit.  If the allocation of shares in BTS to them is low, they lose out.  If it is high, they win.

3) Post Feb 28 purchasers of BTSX.

These stakeholders bought BTSX once it begun trading.

The greater the allocation of new shares in BTS that is given to BTSX, the more they benefit.  If the allocation of shares in BTS to them is low, they lose out.  If it is high, they win.


As we can see from this, pre Feb-28 buyers achieve a fair result no matter what.  (Unless they sold either their BTSX, or their PTS in the meantime, in which case they become like one of the other groups).   It is critical that we find a fair result between post Feb-28 buyers of AGS/PTS, and buyers of BTSX.



Option A: Merge based on market cap at the time of the announcement.

At the time of the announcement, BTSX was worth roughly $50M, and PTS worth roughly $5M, in terms of recent prices.  AGS is essentially the same value as PTS in terms of getting a stake, and therefore this would give it a value of $5M as well.

Therefore, under this plan, we would create a new entity BTS with a $60M market cap (pre-panic sale value), with 2.4 billion shares (as an example). 

2 billion shares would be given to current BTSX holders, 1 for 1, representing the $50M value of BTSX.
200 million shares would be given to current PTS holders, representing the $5M value of PTS.
200 million shares would be given to current AGS holders, representing the $5M value of AGS.


Then, the new 2.4 billion share BTS entity would vote on whether to perform a 'capital infusion' in order to fund marketing efforts, creating and selling additional shares for this purpose. 


It should be clear that anything that gives LESS shares than this to the PTS and AGS holders would be clearly unfair to them, because their market cap compared to BTSX said that they should be worth at least that much.



Option B: Merge based on the traditional social consensus of 10% to PTS, 10% to AGS.

Under this option, a new BTS entity would be created with 2.5 billion shares (as an example).

2 billion shares, or 80% of these shares would be given to BTSX holders.
250 million shares, or 10% of these shares would be given to PTS holders.
250 million shares, or 10% of these shares would be given to AGS holders.

This option achieves the goal of maintaining the social consensus of 10%/10%. 
This option gives AGS/PTS a bit of bonus value relative to the market caps at the time of the announcement.


It should be clear that anything that gives MORE shares than this to the PTS and AGS holders would be clearly unfair to BTSX holders, because it would pay a very large premium to PTS/AGS relative to the stake the BTSX holders are putting in.




It is normal during a merger, for the acquiring entity to pay some amount of premium over the current market value to the acquired stakeholders, in order to get them to agree to the deal.

In our case, if we go with option B, and give 10% of BTS each to PTS and AGS holders, we are giving them a 25% premium over what the market cap 'said' they were worth.  But in doing so we are maintaining the 10%/10% social consensus. 


I think that this (option B above) is a reasonably fair solution to all parties.  While BTSX holders get a slightly smaller piece of the final pie than their market caps would dictate, it is normal to have to pay a small premium in order to acquire another company.  Given that the primary driver of the proposed merger was the fear that VOTE DAC (the part that PTS and AGS would get), would become a competitor to BTSX, and the merger is a way for BTSX to eliminate the competition by bringing everyone togethe,r I believe this premium is fair.


I am primarily a BTSX holder, and have more BTSX than PTS, so this proposal hurts me slightly relative to Option A.  However, I do feel the premium is relatively fair, and is necessary for community unity, and for the preservation of the 10%/10% consensus.

It is convenient that the market caps of PTS and TBSX were such that the 10% figure gets us roughly in the ballpark of a fair settlement value.  It makes it easier for the two sides to agree that at least the settlement is not horribly unfair.




Other considerations:

Proposed 'Lockout period' on PTS/AGS holders new shares, where they cannot sell for a period of time:
This idea was proposed, and I am not sure if people were generally in favor or against it.

I am against it, because it is unfair to PTS/AGS holders.  It would mean that some of the new BTS, given to PTS/AGS, were special shares that were less useful than the others because they cannot be initially sold. 

I believe that we must all be equal in the new entity we are creating, one share is one share!  (Also, this reduces technical complexity, and reduces confusion!)


Proposal for PTS/AGS shares of the new Bitshares to be 'special', and not subject to dilutions that the community votes on.

This idea was proposed, that the PTS/AGS holders new shares do not get diluted.

I am against it, because it is VERY, VERY unfair to BTSX holders.  It would mean that some of the new BTS, given to PTS/AGS, were special shares that are essentially much more valuable than the others, because they are not dilutable.  This would mean that any time the community voted in favor of a capital infusion, it would be entirely the current BTSX holders paying for it, but everyone would share in the benefit!

Again, we must all be equal in the new entity we are creating, one share is one share!   There must be no special privileged shares that the old timer PTS/AGS holders receive, that get special treatment over the others.




A twist on the share counts, to help reduce FUD during the transition:

The 2 billion share count of BTSX is psychologically important to those who have only a minimal knowledge of Bitshares.  (And to many of us who are more invested as well!).

In my above proposals, I had us creating 2.4 or 2.5 billion BTS initially, and then voting on whether to further increase this total for a capital infusion.


However, a better plan would be to keep the number under 2 billion, in order to reduce the amount of FUD that will be focused against bitshares. 

Therefore, I adjust my earlier proposal to the following:


Option C:

New 2 billion share BTS is created, with the following allocations:
1.6 billion shares to current BTSX holders (80%)
200 million shares to PTS holders (10%)
200 million shares to AGS holders (10%)


This helps avoid the initial cries of 'dilution' over the merger.




I further propose the following option, which keeps the share count under 2 billion after the capital infusion:

Option D:

New Bitshares entity is created with 1.8 billion shares currently in existence, with the following allocation:
1.44 billion shares to current BTSX holders (80%)
180 million shares to PTS holders (10%)
180 million shares to AGS holders (10%)


Then, a vote on whether to create 200 million shares for the capital infusion for the marketing efforts, would bring us back to 2 billion total.  This would help to stave off the FUD for a while. 

(This proposal should be modified by bytemaster to reflect the expected size of the capital infusion!)



A final note about the 'capital infusion'

The proposed capital infusion (a nicer term for dilution), will be voted on by the Bitshares holders.  (It won't be forced upon us). 

If we vote yes, it will happen, and if we vote no, it won't. 

I expect that once we reach the point that we will vote on this, that Bytemaster and/or the marketing team will give us details on the size of the dilution, and exactly what we are buying, that is, details on the marketing plan (not just hints). 


I believe it would be good for our ability to sell Bitshares to the crypto community if this dilution were to be of an amount equal to or smaller than the current Bitcoin inflaiton.

That way, we can say: "Yes, Bitshares issues some new shares to pay for a marketing campaign.  BUT, Bitcoin created a lot of new bitcoins to pay for mining!  Bitshares purchased something really useful with its money, AND the amount was less dilution than what bitcoin holders got due to the mining process".   This would be in the order of a 8-10% inflation rate over the next year or so, and then a 4-5% rate after the next bitcoin reward halving in 2016.




Thanks for reading, I hope this was helpful, and I look forward to your thoughts.

It is important that we reach a community consensus on what is generally fair to everyone, so that we can move forward and all BTSX, AGS, and PTS holders can build Bitshares future together.

Imagine you are are new to bitcoin/cryptos, and you have just heard about bitshares for the first time.

You begin investigating it, and you discover the idea of DACs, Distributed Autonomous Corporations.  This is amazing!  You love the idea that a cryptocurrency should be more than just a coin, that it should be a company that makes money, that it should be profitable!

You find that you can buy Bitshares PTS, and in doing so, you will be given shares in all future DACs that are created by the bitshares community.  Forever!  This is amazing, you go buy some.  Its almost like a mutual fund of future DACs!

You investigate the current DACs in existence: BTSX, DNS, etc.  You buy some of the ones that interest you.


This is how we grow our community.  This is how we gain new people who are interested in the bitshares ecosystem.

***********


Now imagine that it is November 6, and you and you have just heard about bitshares for the first time.

You begin investigating it, and you discover the idea of DACs, Distributed Autonomous Corporations.  This is amazing!  You love the idea that a cryptocurrency should be more than just a coin, that it should be a company that makes money, that it should be profitable!

And then you discover that Bitshares PTS closed Nov 5, and now you can NEVER AGAIN buy into the ability to get shares of all future bitshares DACs.   You are shut out forever from this opportunity. 

Disgusted, and upset that there was such a great opportunity open to people in the past, but that they are denying you the opportunity to join them, you do not buy bitshares.  You do not become a member of the bitshares community, helping to spread the word about DACs in development, telling your friends about how they buy into a crypto which actually makes a profit.

Instead, you sit on message boards and whenever the topic of bitshares come up, you complain about how the distribution of their coins is unfair.



I feel it is ESSENTIAL to the health of our community, that there exists SOME token which newcomers can buy, which then gives them a piece of EVERYTHING the community makes.   I plead to you not to deny this opportunity to future newcomers, those who will be part of our lifeblood in the future. 

Crypto is still in its infancy, and new people are coming into the space every day.  We need to capture some of those people and make them believers in Bitshares, we need to grow, we need to gain more people working on more projects.  We will not succeed in that task if we forever divide the community into special old timers who are privileged enough to hold AGS/PTS pre snapshot, and newcomers who are prohibited from ever doing so.

Please do not do this.


Yes, please make PTS DPoS.  Or combine it with AGS into a new, tradable DPoS token.  Or whatever else you want to do to fix it.  Just do not deny newcomers the ability to ever buy it, because if you do, they will walk away from bitshares when they see that, and we will not grow the way we should.


Thanks for reading,

- A newbie Bitshares community member who would have walked away from bitshares instead of buying, if PTS had been closed.

Then I got my head out of the sand and stopped assuming the next bitcoin bubble was inevitable. 

I started researching the altcoins.

I found bitshares.  Everything changed.

Now I just look at the charts of bitshares and smile. 

Bitshares is the future.