Quote from: sirlo on October 22, 2014, 09:33:38 pm

Actually I'm not a trader, I was newbie trying to get a wallet registered because I couldn't move my DNS otherwise
and so I left my DNS on my BTER account for a few days and now..

 I'm SOL simply because..??  a bitshares registration procedure prevented me from immediately moving my dns purchase from the exchange which I would have normally done.

Quite a memorable first BitShares experience I'm having..

Quote from: bytemaster on October 22, 2014, 07:47:51 pm

Quote from: sumantso on October 22, 2014, 07:38:36 pm

All those who bought at Bter are out of luck? All those who claimed after the announcement and sold are also at a loss?

The gainers are those who claimed earlier and sold immediately after the announcement. They got a good price and some free DNS.

Or have I misunderstood it all completely?

I don't think there are any losers except those with funds on the exchange and US.  Those with funds on an exchange were "traders"... those who bought in the days prior and withdrew to hold are OK... those who bought or sold after the announcement are also OK.

maybe BTER can settel this if they hold records. They are forward looking people who will give our share if they can.

really funny part is. BTSX is building a trading plattform and the only people who are always screwed are "traders". i don't get the logic behind, if the traders just fud to get rid of them. i am not a trader i invest and kept the bought DNS on BTER out of convience.

The BTC-e crowd is full of traders switching positions on their crypto-currencies. Certainly there are some stubborn people who believe in "one crypto" but what evidence is there that this reflects the average exchange user? We could get the BTC-e crowd to a platform like this with a lot less initial convincing than fiat users in my view. They are already comfortable in this crypto-environment. We are not trying to convert them to BTS, BitUSD or anything else. We are merely offering a decentralised exchange service.
The challenge I think might be finding shorts willing to 'borrow' in these cryptos that can often go anywhere.

If you're a delegate getting paid by Bitshares X and the SEC takes you to court then Bitshares X shareholders could vote on having additional dilution in order to fund legal defense. In my opinion a legal defense fund should be set aside to protect against this black swan event and the DAC itself could set money aside and additionally delegates themselves if they make enough money could set $100,000 aside for the SEC/IRS just in case they get harassed.

i am not panicking - and thanks for replies.

I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

Quote from: Mysto on October 22, 2014, 03:38:23 am

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 03:30:36 am

Quote from: Mysto on October 22, 2014, 03:28:49 am

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 03:08:55 am

I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.

Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.

I think keeping them as an "emergency fund" would be wiser. The rate of dilution at the beginning might not be fast enough to be very helpful if something drastic were to happen. At the very least they should be used to make bitUSD stronger.

Who gets to decide what constitutes an emergency? We should rather have a way to rapidly implement hard forks to inflate the amount we need in case of an emergency. It will be impossible to know how much or how little is needed for an emergency any way.

The only exceptions should be the funds set aside for the marketing push, and the funds that will be used to make the bitUSD buywall.

Quote from: Mysto on October 22, 2014, 03:28:49 am

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 03:08:55 am

I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.

Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.

Quote from: Mysto on October 21, 2014, 04:53:13 pm

I personally don't think there should be a hard cap. We don't know what the future holds and we don't know if maybe 20 years down the line we will need DCI (Delegated Capital Infusion) for something very large scale and important. A fixed percent a year is fine but a hard cap is not imo.

The hard cap is like the "debt ceiling of the US government".... they can raise it any time the like but it requires more work and public debate like a hard fork.   So we set a budget for BTSX of 10% per year... $5 million at todays cap... the only conceivable reason for increasing the limit is if the value crashed further and the people still committed to the project needed paid.   If the value goes up then the spending ability will grow with it.    So I like the "bitcoin style cap".... a maximum number of shares per block to be issued... it will decrease as a percentage of the whole.    Bitcoin started with 50 BTC and is now at 25.... I suggest we set ours at 2,500 BTS per block as this is very close to what BTC is doing now.