Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 16, 2016, 03:14:44 pm

Quote from: gamey on April 16, 2016, 02:39:57 pm

End it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?

The latter, stiff the people (like you and me) who have shares still vesting. (Though I wouldn't say we all signed up for the vision, DNS/BTSX/PTS lost millions of dollars in value at the time & it was pushed through with very little voting stake.)

It's costing BTS a fortune per day and not achieving many of the original outcomes, so I would vote to end the merger even though I have a few hundred thousand BTS still vesting. Though it's obviously up to others (who have already received 70% of their vesting shares) and other BTS shareholders if they think that's in the best interest of BTS overall.

I think it will hopefully that mean we can spend a lot more on our valuable developers and development without impacting the BTS price as much, the combination of which should make BTS more valuable.

what could this possibly accomplish ? Another demonstration that "BTS would move heaven and earth to feed their few developers at the expense of all/some investors" ?
Though I hate the merger .... I can't support this .

That's ok, it's a controversial topic and may not be in the best interest of BTS overall. 

You don't have to vote to spend more on development if you don't want to, that's your choice.

But the merger is costing 700k a day, 5 million BTS a week. Do you think BTS can afford spending 50-60 BTC a week on it, even though it's not achieving many of the original outcomes?

Technically vests can be transferred and sold by transferring the account.  It just isn't easy.  Not including vests in supply would be grossly misrepresentation of investor interest.  Furthermore vests are required to transact and vote and govern.  They are voluntarily created and held.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, like mining 80% of the initial STEEM isn't 'technically' a pre/instamine. We'll have to see how the market interprets it. I don't think it will be successful myself but good luck with the legendary CMC Pump.

I personally think the 0.47% will be listed as available supply on CMC and the rest will be listed as total supply like Ripple.
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ripple/#markets so investors can still choose to include the total supply in their own calculations if they prefer.

Unfortunately if they allowed STEEM to count the 99.5% as part of liquid/available supply then everyone would use similar techniques, (Mining 90% to themselves, vesting 99.9% and then have $100 million valuations with a hundred dollar volume which would look pretty silly/undermine crypto valuations.)

They might have some 'secret sauce' 

Personally I'm not expecting it to be very popular among the crypto community, given they mined a large portion themselves and obfuscated that fact in their Bitcointalk ANN but they knew that would alienate them from a large group.

I think they're also going to attempt to get a very high valuation by getting CMC to value them based on total supply vs. their available/liquid supply. 

Quote from: bytemaster on April 07, 2016, 12:37:10 pm

Only 0.47% of STEEM is liquid in individual accounts, this is going to make the pump on CMC legend... wait-for-it... dary![/b]

I'd like to buy STEEM .. Anyone willing to sell some OTC?

While CMC has given some leeway in the past on vesting shares I don't think they will when they make up 99.5%. If they do, it will still look pretty silly, claiming to have a high available supply valuation on a few hundred dollars volume.

So while it could be a good buy in the short term when more is revealed, I haven't really got it's potential yet personally, my loss possibly.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 15, 2016, 09:18:06 pm

Quote from: tonyk on March 30, 2016, 06:56:01 am

This makes little to no sense to me... and by 'this' I mean supporters of full dilution leaving the ship with virtually no fight (localhost, trust, blablaName-BlaBleName, shanghai-dragon-cny). Those where all big holders deciding to dump after having been voting for all Actual-work-workers before that....

And while I can understand the logic BM expressed (I said understand , not agree) - i.e. "One side have to move to a new chain...eventually."
I find it  not a very smart way to do it.... especially in the part of leaving supporters fight the so called "non-diluters"...while big whales have given up and silently leave the ship.

Now we know 

No... we knew back then...it is just formally confirmed now.
I still stand behind the above statement -  all steemers should know - their leader is a one to easily give up...leave the ship and chase his next dream.

Steem has vesting/lock up I believe so it does require a lot of long term faith in the founder/s. As I said regarding vesting earlier in the year...

At the same time BTS is still so centralized around CNX you may argue that currently only they can have maximum 1 yr+ confidence in BTS based on whether they plan to focus on supporting BTS at a reasonable price. For example they could... move on to something else completely.. and sell. So regular shareholders would be taking a much greater risk locking up shares for an extended period than BM & CNX at this stage imo.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 15, 2016, 08:56:11 pm

Well at least he's not focusing on bootstrapping a competing USD through the VOTE DAC 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/adamkalebernest/e2e-verifiable-blockchain-voting-software-follow-m?ref=nav_search

Well it's a good thing we didn't give them shares in BTS & lose millions in value in the resulting merger 

Quote from: tbone on April 13, 2016, 04:28:19 pm

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on April 13, 2016, 11:36:18 am

As long as where ever it is placed has room for others as well then I say go for it! 

There is already a place for all parties.  What we're talking about here is making the default Bitshares wallet prominently visible on the forum site.  It should be one of the first things people see when they visit, otherwise we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

the default wallet should not be openledger but the bitshares.org wallet. i want to know how many people are converting from the promoting of openledger and not just because they are the default on bitshares.org (they are right now) and then bitsharestalk.org as well. how do we measure how successful they are, if they get all the community exposure for free as well.  they are doing a good job, but they are promoting their own business and their own UIAs and not the bitAssets.

Yeah, that's a valid point.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 29, 2016, 12:21:35 pm

Quote from: liondani on March 28, 2016, 11:32:54 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 28, 2016, 06:13:06 pm

I'm margin selling all the way up to 0.030 myself.

You made the mistake to not participate on ethereum crowd-sale... don't make another one! We need you here...healthy!

Yeah I might lose on this one My thinking is that they have a high valuation, a lot for sale under 0.032 and high inflation atm.

If you look at LTC when it had that kind of inflation, it could never maintain a high level, as that 30% inflation would always drag the price down when the current reason for speculative demand dried up.

If I lose on this trade, I'll lose on others because I've put buy orders very low on other things I like expecting a sharp Ethereum correction to make them crash too, so I might end up having to buy into them higher. Oh well...

Thumbs up to @Empirical1.2  for his accurate prediction !!!!     
Now tell as where you think it stops?

I don't know I like MAID this week though, MVP getting closer...