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.


Messages - Rune

Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 75
1021
General Discussion / Re: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:43:33 pm »
I'm not generaly against this but I see an issue concerning the funding. The concept of self funding DACs through dilution somehow breaks. Because not every DAC (or in this case application in one DAC) is spending their own money but rather compete on some funding payed by the whole collective. E.g. if only view stake holders have interest in a voting application it is going to be virtually impossible for them to get funded. This would basically eliminate every smaller application integrated in this DAC which probably leads to stand-alone DACs for those applications anyways.

The solution is to rather than have new features start out on the superDAC, they can be seeded on their own blockchain, bootstrap a network of active users and fix/improve/perfect their unique DAC feature. Once their business model has been proven to be profitable, the main DAC can acquire the tech, userbase and off chain infrastructure through a one time market-cap-for-market-cap snapshot.

1022
General Discussion / Re: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:41:31 pm »
The dump we've seen now is most likely the "BTSX should be bitcoin" crowd dumping in reaction to the announcement of share dilution. As someone with a significat amount of BTSX who've lost quite a bit so far, I'll say that this is probably the bottom, unless there are inflation-scared investors left who simply havent seen the announcement yet, I think the rest of us understand that BTSX/BTS will be strengthened overall in the long term.
I agree .. also count in that some/many chineses investors might have interpreted the OP as ANNOUCEMENT which it is NOT (as you also falsely state) ..
It's a "read-for-comment", "proposal", "open-for-discussion" .. or maybe even "hey investors, we need you advice" .. kind of post!

nothing was decided ... and BM will for sure not decide such changes on it's own ..
that's what I learned reading this forum on a regular basis for almost a year now!

When it comes to a subject as volatile as share dilution, a public discussion by core developers is basically the same as an official announcement. The people who fully oppose dilution have already divested the moment they realized developers and stakeholders were even considering it as a realistic option, and you can be almost certain that of the remaining holders there is now a clear majority for dilution.

1023
General Discussion / Re: Hedgy = BitUSD competitor?
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:38:30 pm »
Not really a competitor. It can't be transfered, and they are centralized in the sense that you have to trust them to follow the rules they've outlined out when deciding on the outcomes of the contracts.

1024
The solution is to have the one "major personality" that everyone is attracted to and follows, be a decentralized and transparent company rather than a human. As long as we assume all current stakeholders aren't evil plutocrats, we can assume that the DAC will generally be used for good and the liberation of mankind, and especially see it as their moral obligation to obliterate the incumbent elite.

1025
General Discussion / Re: Be still, young Jedi
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:34:02 pm »
Once the superDAC BitShares has been made manifest, AGS and PTS loses their purpose. The simple economics of metcalfes law states that it will never make any economic sense to make a seperate decentralized DAC that competes with the main one since each user in the new one will be much less valuable than if they simple were added to the main network. New DACs can be created as test runs, but their features should/will eventually be rolled into the relatively large network/userbase of BTS, once they have proven to be stable and profitable.

I agree there should be a one time "buyout" of PTS and AGS, but I don't think it should be done exactly at market evaluation. BTSX holders should be compensated for the fact that they had to suffer the "inflation shock" we've seen now, and should be allowed to buy PTS and AGS at a slightly discounted rate. In the end all shareholders will benefit massively from this consolidation.

1026
General Discussion / Re: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:26:22 pm »
Seriously now...We need to have some FINAL rules of what we will do...

I am a long term supporter in here who never got any profit yet by day trading. Instead, since I am a long time supporter I am trying to adjust in order to increase my long term position...

Bought expensive PTS. Turns out I should had AGS.
Kept buying PTS after 28th snapshot until I realised that since I don't care about short term liquidity much I should buy AGS.
Donated to AGS later on, turns out that now AGS will not be awarded in future DACs and will get diluted?
Kept buying BTSX from the $20 mil market cap up to the $70-$80 mil market cap by giving away any bitcoins or altcoins I had left, without claiming yet any of my PTS - AGS snapshot shares.
Now BTSX seems to be again where it shouldn't...At market cap of $45 mil. I don't know if I should sell DNS to buy more cheap BTSX or BTSX will crash so I should just keep my DNS..
Seriously...There is no way I can evaluate my position...I feel I am where I was exactly 1 year ago...
I am a very small fish in here, not a very important shareholder but that doesn't mean that my expectations are not enormous for the next years to come. And now I just don't know what to do...

Why people are dumping BTSX since now the proposal is to unite all DACs under 1 umbrella of Bitshares? What am I missing that others don't..

Please finalise the rules!

The dump we've seen now is most likely the "BTSX should be bitcoin" crowd dumping in reaction to the announcement of share dilution. As someone with a significat amount of BTSX who've lost quite a bit so far, I'll say that this is probably the bottom, unless there are inflation-scared investors left who simply havent seen the announcement yet, I think the rest of us understand that BTSX/BTS will be strengthened overall in the long term.

1027
General Discussion / Re: Voting on Hard Forks
« on: October 19, 2014, 11:45:20 am »
I don't think it is feasible to require 51% of all shares to vote given that there are so many unclaimed shares.

IMO there should be 4 states, yes/no/majority/no show

No show votes should not be included in the total calculation of required voting thresholds. Stakes that have been active in the last x months default to majority, stakes that have not been active in the last x months default to no show.

1028
General Discussion / Re: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once
« on: October 19, 2014, 11:35:47 am »

1. Dilution 
an investor's nightmare


Want me to make a list of stocks that have ever issued new shares? You'll probably reconsider this blanket statement when you realize that basically every successful company that has ever existed has issued new shares in situations where shareholders and management has deemed it profitable.

1029
General Discussion / Re: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once
« on: October 19, 2014, 11:07:37 am »
We need to communicate clearly to shareholders the advantages of introducing dilution. Perhaps we should rename it to "delegated share issuance" so people will understand what its purpose is. The idea is that every new share issued will be used in a profitable way to generate a return higher than 1:1.

It seems to me the Chinese community is panicking right now. It needs to be communicated clearly to them as well.

1030
General Discussion / Re: VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0
« on: October 19, 2014, 02:42:22 am »
Above all, they promise to do everything possible to remain competitive.

The idea that the unspecified default behavior of a company is to promise a fixed set of shares for all time is a vestigial holdover from early currency metaphor thinking.  This is the red herring that needs to be faced squarely.

If a fixed supply hurts the competitive edge, has BTSX has broken that promise?

Some spin BM's comments as "BTSX cannot inflate, therefore DOA".
Is there any remote truth to this, and if so, what are our options for fixing it?

My point was that the existence of such an unpromised promise is a metaphorical trap that even we almost let ourselves be led into by the oft repeated can't infuse fresh capital assumptions of others.  If there was such a fatal promise made for the Feb 28th snapshot or upon release by DAC Sun Limited, would someone help us find it?  As far as i remember, the only thing specified was the initial genesis block distribution.

BitShares has always been about breaking the currency metaphor and embracing the company metaphor.  Companies aggressively infuse all kinds of value-increasing capital to compete.  That includes mergers and acquisitions and additional rounds of venture capital and people working for equity.

Even if there was a promise of no inflation, it would be irrelevant because the authority in a DAC lies with the delegates, and nowhere else. If elected delegates decide to hard fork to inflate, and no majority or significant minority of stakeholders oppose them, then it will happen regardless of any promises made earlier. The purpose of a DAC is to grow in network and in value, and as it is fast becoming apparent that no inflation without a huge bootstrapped network is not competitive, then I don't think it will be difficult to gain a majority for inflation any longer.

1031
Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry if my "not trustworthy" remark came off as offensive. I wrote the post quite quickly and the remark was not meant personally, but rather in a "technical" sense fitting in the semantic framework of decentralized and trustless systems. I wanted to formulate it better but as English is not my first language I wasn't able to quickly come up with a less offensive way to write it.

I agree with the importance of all your points, and especially with the notion that metcalfes law and the value scaling of networks is key for understanding how to make decentralized networks successful.

My idea for a way to address the scaling and feature overload issue could be to perhaps have some sort of "merger & acquisition" system built into the bitshares ecosystem. So perhaps new DAC functionalities could start out as their own independent DACs, and could then be acquired by the main bitshares DAC once it was fully tested and it was proven that it could scale and would work in a large DAC.

The new functionality DAC could have a relatively small set of delegates, and the merger could then be handled through a snapshot at a value negotiated by the delegates and developers of both DACS, alongside a simultaneous implementation of the new DAC functionality into the main DAC client. The advantage of acquiring the new DAC through a snapshot rather than just copying it without a snapshot would be that the acquisition would come with all off chain infrastructure that had already been set up, and then of course the bootstrapped userbase.

The advantage would be that we do not completely eliminate competition amongst DAC features, but we still allow less risk seeking investors a singular, permanent, well branded and well marketed DAC to invest in, that the entire community will always be supporting. The crypto equity answer to bitcoin.

1032
General Discussion / Please consider rolling the VOTE features into BTSX
« on: October 19, 2014, 01:01:33 am »
So, anyone who has read the posts in the VOTE 2.0 thread, and has the ability to think rationally, will have already arrived at the conclusion that BTSX has been sentenced to death.

Dan and Stan will adamantly deny this, of course, but no matter how much you trust their intelligence, in this regard you cannot trust their honesty, because they have massive financial incentives in convincing investors that the new vote DAC will not hurt BTSX, so people don't panic-divest now. If the BTSX market cap evaporated now, the VOTE DAC and the rest of the bitshares ecosystem would be hurt immensely.

That doesn't mean the VOTE DAC will not cannibalize and destroy BTSX once it is released.

Let's consider the facts:

The vote DAC will be built on the bitshares toolkit, and have all the features of BTSX, including a separate bitUSD. In the long run it will be irrational of VOTE delegates not to expand this to include all other bitassets, and I assume user issued assets will be included by default since they are in the toolkit, and there is no reason not to.

The vote DAC will share marketing funnels and budget with BTSX, and will share the on ramp and possibly the off ramp of BTSX.

The VOTE DAC has some unique system that will allow it provide value beyond the asset exchange and the inherent value of a DPOS powered crypto currency. This will supposedly allow the DAC to gain network effect very fast.

The DAC will have inflation as a system of long term funding. BM has repeatedly stated that the lack of inflation is the biggest drawback of btsx.

In short, the VOTE DAC is basically a btsx clone with a unique system to gain network effect, and with inflation to fund development and marketing.

Unless BTSX has somehow managed to bootstrap a massive network, it will be dead once VOTE is released because the network-effect-secret will allow VOTE to grow and promote itself while BTSX cannot, while simultaneously also possessing all the selling points that BTSX has. The only advantages BTSX could be thought to have are no inflation (which BM has repeatedly said is a great weakness) and the bootstrapped network (currently non-existent; there are only investors/speculators)

Now many people will chime in saying that the VOTE DAC will not be offering bitassets like BTSX does, and will not focus on the same users, or try to make money in the same markets. What you are describing is economic irrationality. The purpose of a DAC is to maximize shareholders worth, and the majority of the voting stakeholders in the vote DAC would have to be altruistic if BTSX were to be untouched.

The economic reality is that a DAC will do whatever it can to provide as much value as possible, no matter its initial design. Stakeholders will always vote to increase the value of their shares - it doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it, this is an irrefutable fact. VOTE stakeholders will vote to cannibalize BTSX if it is profitable for them. The only way to prevent aggressive expansion, and the inevitable cannibalization of BTSX , would be to centralize the VOTE DAC in some way (this would have the side effect of ensuring that the DAC would be dead on arrival, and will thus be unlikely to happen).

The truth is that no matter how a DPOS DAC starts out, if it gains a significant network effect then the main value proposition of it will eventually be means of payment and store of wealth. The trifecta of DPOS, Titan and market pegged assets makes a fully networked DPOS blockchain so insanely powerful as a crypto currency, with a level of security, speed and decentralization the world has never seen.

Alright, so my point is that unless the unique network effect secret of VOTE turns out to be so bad that it cannot beat the tiny momentum BTSX currently has, then BTSX is as good as dead...

Or, this whole thing could be done a different way.

Since VOTE will basically be BTSX + secret + inflation, there is nothing preventing BTSX from simply upgrading itself with VOTE's capabilities. Due to the nature of DPOS, it will be incredibly easy to gauge the stakeholders and see whether they support implementing VOTE functionality or not. If the majority does not want inflation, then they will simply vote out any delegate that supports it, and if they support implementing VOTE and inflation, they will vote out any opposing delegates. There would be nothing immoral about letting stakeholders decide the fate of the DAC that they own, especially not when it is now clear that this question is a matter of survival or being cannibalized.

Once inflation was implemented into BTSX, PTS and AGS holders could simply be rewarded with a smaller amount of newly created stake in BTSX, to compensate them for the lack of an independent vote DAC.

This merge would have some additional fortunate consequences, such as removing the need for I3 to spend money on marketing two DACS that are ultimately competing. Marketing two separate, competing bitUSD would be especially awkward.

The VOTE functionality would also get the massive boost of starting out with the extremely active markets and high volume that BTSX has.

Obviously the implementation of VOTE into BTSX shouldn't happen for a long time. What's important is that it is communicated to investors now that if they vote to allow it, then VOTE will rolled into BTSX once it is ready. That would massively boost investor confidence, and general trust and confidence in I3, both in the short term and long term.

To reflect that BTSX with added VOTE functionality would now be more than just an exchange, the name of this new "superDAC" could simply be: BitShares - BTS. This would also be a huge boost for the marketing to the altcoin community of both the BTSX and VOTE functionality, as the no. 4 spot on coinmarketcap would now have a really great name instead of the very confusing BitSharesX.

To anyone who will attack this proposal with the naive idea that competing blockchains can work together or provide value to each other: please think deeply about, and then explain to me in clear economic terms, why shareholders of separate blockchains that operate on the same toolkit with the same features, not will be incentivized to vote for the cannibalization of each other's markets if this is profitable(excluding altruism).

Also think about metcalfes law, and why one network with 2N nodes is much more valuable than 2 networks with N nodes.

1033
General Discussion / Re: VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0
« on: October 18, 2014, 01:31:10 am »
New DACs give additional funding to the ecosystem.  People who have been here from earlier days may not have as much of an interest in BTSX as people new.  IMO Voting DAC is basically the same as the KeyID DAC, so there will be even more value in terms of potential dev money.

I'm much happier seeing I3/whoever diversify outside BitsharesX.  To not lay groundwork elsewhere would be foolish.   We get better strategic positioning via first mover type stuff.  We get more funding to help the ecosystem as a whole.  We benefit.

There is no first mover advantage without a userbase. Having an empty DAC will give no advantage at all. An established network with active users will come along and take whatever innovations they can for their own blockchain to use. Also how long do you think it will be possible to get funding out of the same small group of people?

There is no first mover advantage without a userbase?  That is how it works ?  So if someone else created a far superior Namecoin without any users, they wouldn't have an advantage ?  ::)  KeyID/DNS doesn't even necessarily overlap much with the people who are interested in BTSX.

People will use the products due to value they perceive in using it. Your account is quite new so I assume you see everything in BTSX tinted glasses.  Ok... I get it.

Metcalfes law. Namecoin is currently 100% useless precisely because no one uses it. OB might change that, but a better version of Namecoin coming along would not be able to piggyback off that in any way, and would thus be as useless as Namecoin currently is.

The only way to attract new users en masse "out of nowhere" is through monetary incentive, and that is why currently BTSX IS bitshares, as it is the only bitshares DAC with the potential to attract users. Once btsx gains a network, then the other DACs might actually benefit from it and the greater ecosystem can be established and grow. Without btsx growth, there will be nothing.

1034
General Discussion / Re: VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0
« on: October 18, 2014, 01:24:29 am »
It's interesting over the past weeks to hear everybody saying

"Gee, I hope there a Plan B for Marketing this stuff."

Apparently there are those who wouldn't recognize a Plan B if it sneaked up and bit them in the assets.

:)


With all due respect this seems like a terrible way to market btsx. I can't think of any consumers who are craving decentralized voting to the extent that they will actively seek it out themselves, or let it go viral in any way. It seems like something that itself needs a gargantuan marketing budget to tell people and organizations why they actually need it.

1035
General Discussion / Re: VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0
« on: October 18, 2014, 01:11:54 am »
New DACs give additional funding to the ecosystem.  People who have been here from earlier days may not have as much of an interest in BTSX as people new.  IMO Voting DAC is basically the same as the KeyID DAC, so there will be even more value in terms of potential dev money.

I'm much happier seeing I3/whoever diversify outside BitsharesX.  To not lay groundwork elsewhere would be foolish.   We get better strategic positioning via first mover type stuff.  We get more funding to help the ecosystem as a whole.  We benefit.

There is no first mover advantage without a userbase. Having an empty DAC will give no advantage at all. An established network with active users will come along and take whatever innovations they can for their own blockchain to use. Also how long do you think it will be possible to get funding out of the same small group of people?

Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 75