Quote from: Rune on October 20, 2014, 09:10:33 pm

Quote from: luckybit on October 20, 2014, 08:31:07 pm

Quote from: Rune on October 20, 2014, 08:03:17 pm

As long as the DAC is growing faster than the inflation, it will still be profitable. If a delegate uses inflated funds to bring more value into the DAC than he took via inflation, it will be profitable. If stakeholders determine a delegate to be unprofitable, he will get voted out immediately.

Agreed. There needs to be some consequences for board of directors who promise the world and don't deliver. We need ways to actually measure whether or not buying power is increasing, whether or not DAC profits are going up.

If you can increase the burn rate then you could literally save cash within the DAC itself and use that to pay for investment. So if you can increase the burn rate then you in theory could dilute by simply reversing the burn. This wouldn't affect the initial proportions of the DAC as the cap would still be in place.

If we do not allow ourselves the flexibility that share dilution gives, we will be eaten by a DAC that will, such as VOTE. It's just common sense that a business that can issue stock to kickstart the network effect will destroy one that can't.

I'm for flexibility I just don't think it's as easy as it's being presented. This is going to be difficult not just in building the capabilities to do it but also in educating the shareholders.

We need the ability to vote.
We need reputation.
We need dilution.

But I think we need the ability to vote and reputation prior to dilution. If you cannot vote on infrastructure, if you don't have reputation so that there is accountability, then we have the same kind of risk you see with government politicians. Shareholders must be in control and there must be  performance metrics to track from within Bitshares X itself.

We will get the stakeholder hard fork vote capability soon. Once we have that, stakeholders will vote on whether to implement the possibility for delegates to dilute. If that is accepted, then PTS/AGS will be bought out through some one time vested share system, and the name will be changed to BTS. Once BTS is stable, Adam from followmyvote will apply to be a diluting delegate for whatever salary he thinks is reasonable, and if he is elected by stakeholders, he will begin to implement VOTE functionality into BTS.

I don't imagine there being any other diluting delegates in the near future, unless the ability to work directly for a blockchain attracts some high profile developers from the crypto community, that are so universally supported by BTS stakeholders that they can also get in.

Quote from: Rune on October 20, 2014, 08:03:17 pm

As long as the DAC is growing faster than the inflation, it will still be profitable. If a delegate uses inflated funds to bring more value into the DAC than he took via inflation, it will be profitable. If stakeholders determine a delegate to be unprofitable, he will get voted out immediately.

Agreed. There needs to be some consequences for board of directors who promise the world and don't deliver. We need ways to actually measure whether or not buying power is increasing, whether or not DAC profits are going up.

If you can increase the burn rate then you could literally save cash within the DAC itself and use that to pay for investment. So if you can increase the burn rate then you in theory could dilute by simply reversing the burn. This wouldn't affect the initial proportions of the DAC as the cap would still be in place.

If we do not allow ourselves the flexibility that share dilution gives, we will be eaten by a DAC that will, such as VOTE. It's just common sense that a business that can issue stock to kickstart the network effect will destroy one that can't.

As long as the DAC is growing faster than the inflation, it will still be profitable. If a delegate uses inflated funds to bring more value into the DAC than he took via inflation, it will be profitable. If stakeholders determine a delegate to be unprofitable, he will get voted out immediately.

New shares will be issued by elected delegates to pay for things like development of extra features, or marketing of bitassets. The important thing is that it will really difficult to abuse, and if anyone tries to inflate just to run away with the money, they will be voted out immediately.

The ability to issue shares to infuse capital will be an incredible competitive advantage over all our competitors.

Quote from: Rune on October 20, 2014, 06:19:32 pm

The ability to issue bitshares as a means of capital infusion will be an insane competitive advantage versus all our competitors. While they rely on altruistic programmers to donate their time, we simply pay for the best developers in the industry. While they have fund raisers for dogecar and other random things, we hire real marketing professionals with a proven track record to explode our mindshare and get our brand out there. We have to pay for these things, yes, but they will provide much higher value at a much faster rate than simply begging or praying for generous specialists to donate their time and skills to us.

Seems to be capital infusion to generate real growth... therefore capital infusion becomes the only way to grow... how is it different than fed pumping QE to try to drive growth/confidence?

Capital infusion to kickstart growth. Once a network effect has been achieved real growth and real profits will take over. Why do start ups take century capital? It means they have to dilute their share, but it is obviously profitable.

Was just thinking about the bitcoin.com fiasco, and wondering if the same thing will happen to us.

Talking with them today

So stoked to get them on board!!!!!

This will be the beginning of an exponential increase in crypto development. Once our funding model ramps up we will have all the smartest people in the space working together to create the ultimate product. It will be absurdly powerful.