Quote from: Empirical1 on August 04, 2014, 03:30:26 pm

Quote from: NineLives on August 03, 2014, 09:51:33 pm

Hi guys,

I'm soo sorry to fire these questions but I keep falling behind of our new BTS world and I hope you guys can help me catch up.

2)   I'm excited to see the new wallet, however, I can't seem to make an account from inside the app?

Yes, this is a problem. The fact that you have to do this at all. And the fact you are obviously someone who's familiar with BTS but you can't find this information without asking for it, shows how poorly this part of the set up process has been communicated.

if you want, just find your public key. it looks like this BTSX7N3PmjQGAssnAJP31uxewW9tsJ2SuBRqQnKPZjArazmqgFWDns, post it, and i'll send you a tiny bit to get started.

Bad publicity is not good publicity.  The author is presenting himself as an authority on the subject, has implied that his insight has come from personal conversations with Dan and has slandered Bitshares X without a single shred of factual evidence.  This FUD needs to be totally ripped to pieces and sent to the abyss from whence it came.....

What I do not like is that this suggestion is full with  twisted-logic as:
I hate that, I don't want to worry about shareholders diluting me by some amount in future I can't control.

But you are OK with being diluted all the time, as above not being able to control it?

Quote from: Empirical1 on August 02, 2014, 08:39:58 pm

Quote from: tonyk on August 02, 2014, 08:08:52 pm

Quote from: Empirical1 on August 02, 2014, 07:18:57 pm

However some businesses take a few years to be positive so it could be useful in that period. Also occasionally a business might have to borrow for expansion or to respond to a competitor so having some form of equity release/inflation available, that is mostly being 100% burnt, (ergo no inflation) available to be directed to funding the business when needed could be good.

Removing ‘The central point of failure’  and seeing if this decentralization will actually work, is the first thing I see as a reason for trying this new scheme. (even though I am not optimistic that we will find anything better than  ‘Better decentralized solutions, to problems that are best solved by centralization’)

However, in the above quote,  I see one of the things that concerns me the most. The believe that in this new shares we have something actually more to sell than without them. Diluting the mixture and putting in more bottles is actually not ‘some form of equity’.
 In other words – you have the same income coming to the delegates as in the undiluted fees model. Hoping that somehow you will sell it for more than the undiluted fee (salt) contained in it, just not gonna happen. And you should not expect this as a result of your new model.

I don't believe these shares are something 'more' than without them. I realise it is not new value.

But having the equity accessible is a potential advantage over a DAC that does not have any of its equity available. 

DAC A has 10% inflation directed via DPOS,  DAC B does not have inflation. Both are worth $10 million and both are generating $1 000 000 revenue and $200 000 profit for shareholders per year.

Currently shareholders in DAC A burn all the inflation so they appear very similar. 

An opportunity comes up to buy a competitor for $1 000 000 or maybe  Bytemaster says I'm willing to give my time to that DAC for two years for $500 000 worth of equity.

How does DAC B get access to the equity to take advantage of either opportunity if they they think it's valuable? 

In DAC A shareholders can access some of the underlying equity, by re-directing the inflation from 100% burn (ergo no inflation) to taking advantage of the opportunity for growth that DAC B can't.

How DAC A decides that? – by voting (and waiting for the necessary fees to be collected; huge difference if it is buying a new company, not paying BM for N years).

How DAC B resolves the issue:- by Voting, increases the share supply with exactly what is needed, effectively taking as much as needed inflation, (possible all at once and not by a  long slow process, in the case of needing the whole amount at once).

Which one do you like better?



To say nothing that ‘Toast’ (the developer of DAC A) could  just have been awarded all the extra shares of DAC A to begin with, and he decides what to do with them even more efficiently. But let’s not go in circles here, talking about this scenario.

" If you want to win the crypto-currency race as well as benefit humanity you will do best to give them a currency with pretty hard coded initial rules and no or low, unchangeable inflation. (Alternatives will result in coin holders damaging themselves through greed and short termism as well as the financially uneducated succumbing to supporting strategies promoted by a small smarter minority usually using instant gratification as the hook.)

This is why gold has maintained a stable value for thousands of years - because we can't mess with the initial rules (regarding it's inflation and production) too much.

Fiat money on the other hand I would say is the example of 'smart money'  -  coins where there is no hard-coded limit/backing and no guarantee/confidence they will maintain 'X' limit in the future with regard to inflation/production.  No pure fiat currency has lasted more than 50 years & in their collapse 'smart coins' have left the bottom 90% of their users much worse off. I suspect applied to crypto we will see the same events unfold, just on an accelerated time-scale.

I've seen BitShares propose a 10/10/80 model. Where 20% is awarded to AGS & PTS and the remaining 80% is distributed via delegates using a ten year equity release plan. I'm all for that (well I'd prefer 20/20/60). Provided whatever the equity release plan is, is clearly defined and pretty hard-coded somehow into the system. It should let us be extremely flexible to responding to the needs of the DAC.

So unlike you I would like the " inflation rate, or the amount of currency that is put into production at any point in time " to be hard coded. They can always fork if they don't like it, but a 'future inflation/production un-defined/uncertain blockchain' would immediately have less value I believe anyway.

Quote

economic fallacies, such as: by increasing the supply of ‘money’ one can actually stimulate growth, and growing economic systems depend on constant increase in such supply.

It is not predetermined that inflation to expand makes sense.
The question is: Can those that get the newly issued shares/coins/tokens (they are paid this way) increase the value of the network/coin/DAC/company more than shareholders/coinholders are diluted?  If the answer is yes, what reason is there not to do it.