Capital Infusion.

Your press release should not say "Larimer first floated the idea on the BitSharesTalk but was initially met with community outrage and 20% drop in shareprice of BitSharesX in the first 24 hours."

First of all, its not accurate.  Most of us werent outraged, we were confused.  The price drop was mostly due to people having no idea whatthe hell was going on, plus FUD about 'dilution', combined with some people who didnt like the idea dumping.

Second of all, the press release should explain the positive benefits not dwell on the negative.

i did't calculated which allocation will be better for me, because i allready increased my BTSX holding in the past, but we all should consider what AGS and PTS holders is promised and that is 10% of a new chain, and that is a new chain as far as i see it.

This was my proposal B.    It is slightly better for PTS/AGS holders than proposal A, which was a purely market cap based calculation.

By the way, if you had some AGS before, and then bought more BTSX after Fed 28, then you are benefitted more by proposal A than by B.

I cant understand what your conclusions are at all.  Percentages of distributions need to add up to 100% to make sense.

Quote from: Ander on October 20, 2014, 09:54:17 pm

By % of the total ?

Thats unclear right now.  We need to get a consensus on the fair percentages for everyone.

Will any of these options reduce current BTSX holders shares by number or percentage of the whole or both?

They all will.

But you will have a smaller part of a larger whole.

a) Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin with the intention of it being decentralized digital gold. Gold 2.0.

b) Daniel Larimer created Bitshares with the intention of it being a decentralized autonomous company. Shares 2.0.

Deflation (or controlled inflation) makes sense if you're trying to be a decentralized global currency like Bitcoin. But what if you're trying to reimagine what a company is?

FACT: "Regular" centralized companies issue new shares to facilitate growth all the time. For a Decentralized Autonomous Company to compete with a centralized corporation, it MUST have the ability to issue new shares or it can never hope to compete. If it comes down to a centralized corporation vs. a DAC, the centralized corp will always win because it has the ability to fund its own growth.

In Dans latest proposal, shareholders must reach a majority consensus through voting before new shares can be issued. This makes complete sense if we want DACs to be self funding and competitive with real world corporations. If we as a community don't get behind the idea of delegated share issuance, the whole concept of a DAC is dead on arrival.

Let's completely embrace the share 2.0 metaphor and get on with changing the world.

 

Excellent analogy!

Well, as someone who has more BTSX than PTS, I prefer option A as well, over those that give a bit more to PTS/AGS.  But I wasnt sure the community would buy this, due to the 10%/10% rule.

I am willing to stomach giving the 20% premium over the market caps to the PTS/AGS people in order to 'buy them out'.  More than this would be unfair for sure.  I would expect the PTS/AGS people to feel that giving them less than 10% is unfair.  It is within this fortunately small range that the negotiation occurs.



Obviously, an option E which is a variant on my Option A but which simply renames BTSX into BTS instead of creating a new chain, and creates shares and gives them to PTS/AGS holders, and closes PTS/AGS, is good with me as well.  I figure that bytemaster can implement the technical details of the agreement however works best, once we all agree on what the fair allocation is.