We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
--Benjamin Franklin
It is hard to look past the implication that Inviticus still intends a noose party for ProtoShares investors.
ProtoShares ownership was shown by example to define 100% of share ownership in the genesis block of each Inviticus DAC. The ownership stake is promised to be 10% of total projected money supply for the Inviticus DAC. 90% of the money supply for BitShares was to be brought into circulation though mining rewards over a 10 year period. ProtoShare owners are promised 10% of the total money supply of each DAC regardless of how quickly DAC shares are brought into circulation and who benefits from them, but Inviticus is in questionable territory if it intends to say that anything but ProtoShare ownership will soon get you DAC ownership in each genesis block. ProtoShares had been sold as THE way to obtain genesis block ownership. AngelShares (or variant) should be about securing a stake in ProtoShare benefits rather than competition for what was supposed to be a benefit exclusive to ProtoShares.
Discussion related to the elimination of mining-based rewards has focused on who is to control the 90% of the total money supply that would have been mined. It is also important to know how quickly that 90% is to enter circulation. If Inviticus intends to put part of that 90% into the genesis block or intends to flood the market with shares shortly after genesis then that has a significant material effect on the short term value of DAC ownership by way of PTS ownership. The way I currently read it, Inviticus can cleverly undermine the short term value of ProtoShares without a technical violation of the social contract for ProtoShares, but the policy does affect current PTS value and it is important that any proposal for Inviticus DACs clearly show how the money supply in circulation is to be changed over time so that investors can make informed decisions. Clarification is needed.
This revisit of the AngelShares by que23 has changes in style and detail. The neglected details can be as harmful to investor value as the original AngelShares ideas by bytemaster. It speaks volumes that the investment offered in Vegas had not increased ProtoShares value or trade volume and that the first ideas originating from the Vegas conference were to make ProtoShares a rapidly depreciating stake in ownership. Be mindful of your own warning about being hung together.
Invictus Innovations' focus has, thus far, been on how to benefit ProtoShares holders. This is, ostensibly, only going to be solidified by the instantiation of Invictus' plans, and other DACs making use of this opportunity. As ProtoShares' holders are implicitly entitled by social consensus to what emanates from them, it is to be hoped that no entity will cause their own implosion by deviating from what should be the utmost of imperatives: Before all else, secure the inherent right of profit to the progenitor of ALL future DACs, ProtoShares. Failure to comply with this will result in widespread distrust of the dissenting DAC, wherever it may spring from. That being said, I have seen only evidence of massive thought, work, and care being put into the honoring of ProtoShares, and see no sign of this being discontinued. Indeed, I see Invictus investing a lot of thought into making sure that it is, in fact, mandatory and secure. Cheers.
Show Posts
