The shares only benefit the early adopters in the sense that you're buying into a company that is still unknown so you're probably going to get them for a lot less than once available on the open market.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Are you familiar with BitShares? NOTES would be what BTSX is to BitSharesX.

If we want to draw an analogy to a traditional business bitUSD, etc. are what people use to buy the company's product. NOTES are shares in the company - what people buy to own a piece of the company.

Since this is a DAC there is no head office or CEO, etc. It is owned and operated by the NOTES (share) holders. The NOTES holders vote for delegates that run the network (sign blocks) that the Artistcoins are traded on.

The Artistcoin (for example MarkyCoin) are brought into existence by shorting NOTES in the same way bitUSD is brought into existence.

Cob: If I've misstated let me know and I'll remove/update this post.

Quote from: sumantso on October 24, 2014, 04:26:42 am

Stan, when is the announcement going to be? Are you guys waiting for the rest of the buy walls to be eaten?

I don't make announcements.
I just try to explain them.

 

Quote from: oco101 on October 24, 2014, 04:01:38 am

Quote from: yellowecho on October 24, 2014, 03:50:53 am

I3 needs to be disbanded and everyone on the BitShares team (including devs, marketing, partners, etc) need to signup as delegates so they get paid and we can vote on performance.

I agree generally but I have a problem with this scenario,i.e  it will be really tough to evaluate how good a developer is, or how productive is. I prefer to vote for a delegate(Bytemaster) that will be in charge of a team of devs instead to bother how good each developer is. In my opinion this is much more efficient. How many shareholders will even take the time to vote for one dev now imagine if they have like 50 or more ?

When you vote for bytemaster, you will be voting for his entire slate, which will be his team and whoever else he thinks are profitable for the DAC. This has both the advantages of enabling you to vote for an entire team, AND additionally you have the ability to transparently audit and downvote any individuals within the organizational structure that you don't agree with having on as delegates.

Quote from: oco101 on October 24, 2014, 02:37:04 am

This one too is brilliant :

Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 02:09:47 am

Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition

Edit : Ohh yeah this DAC will be 6x more powerful then the superDAC why ? Well because ..you know !!!! Ask Op he'll do the math for you.

The best thing would be if it magically improved your ability to comprehend basic English. But alas, "one chain to rule them all" is doomed to failure...

To any developers who are watching the current fiasco unfold, I have a suggestion for creating a DAC that I believe has a decent shot at beating the superDAC with minimal effort and expense. The Bitshares superDAC has the following weaknesses:

* The threshold for inflation is too low. By allowing inflation of up to 8% perpetually in the protocol, you end up with a situation where large stakeholders are able to "write their own paycheck" for lack of a better term. The biggest stakeholders in the superDAC will be I3, and for all intents and purposes they will be setting their own pay. It would take an almost impossible amount of stake (if you consider the avg participation rate) to "disagree" with their payrate and to vote them out. Any currency (even Bitcoin) allows for inflation. The difference is that inflation is not baked into the protocol, and would therefore require a far greater "stake" to implement (by modifying the protocol). Bitshares has ignored one of the main principles of crypto community: that scarcity should be (almost) inviolable.
* The second weakness of the superDAC is distribution. AGS distribution has already alienated a huge number of Bitcoin purists who are adamantly against "IPO coins". I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy, but there is a large segment of crypto users who will only invest in coins that have no IPO, no premine, and ONLY PoW distribution. The chaos that is unfolding with the superDAC has amplified the problem, possibly causing irreparable harm in PR and public distrust. I'm not speaking to intentions here. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.

Here is my proposal:

Someone should fork the Bitshares Toolkit and create a new Bitshares PTS that launches on November 5th (the date of snapshot). The new PTS should have nothing but the core Toolkit functionality (DPOS+TITAN). With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.

This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost. The new PTS can always benefit from improvements made to the Toolkit, and if PTS wins I am sure Dan and the rest of the devs from I3 will jump on board (since they will have a large stake in PTS as well). If it loses then nothing much is lost.

Quote from: tonyk on October 23, 2014, 01:47:06 am

Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 08:42:58 pm

Quote from: Gentso1 on October 22, 2014, 05:53:53 pm

Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 05:15:53 pm

Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 04:55:46 pm

Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:47:55 pm

You are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.

But you're creating this out of nothing. The Social Consensus was always 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. They are co-equal in every way. Where does this "liquidity discount" come from, other than your mind? I was pointing out that any person could probably find a bunch of other random reasons for wishing to discount PTS or AGS...no less random than yours.

They are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."

If that is your argument the sell your pts now. With your pts you have all ready received stakes in btsx,dns and vote. You can choose to liquidate those stakes or hang-on  to them in any ratio to receive bts. As a ags holder I have no option of liquidating my ags.Other then selling the stakes in the dacs I have received. 

Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts. I was one of the hyped soul's that was buying pts at 14$+ pre 2/28 snapshot  to make sure I got btsx before it went to the moon. Pts has had more the enough flexibility to make plenty of profit. As other's have pointed out even if this merger was not going to go through I think the other DAC's are a way of from being completed. Not to mention the mining problem with pts or and lets not forget if we don't merge we are taking are small dev team and splinting them in the dacs.

Fact is the original plan was probably a little to ambitious. Having separate dac's sounds great but I just don't think its practical given the size of the dev teams at the moment. After the brand is built is the time to spin stand alone dac's off.

"sell your pts now" - Thank you for the completely irrelevant investment advice based on your assumption that the proposed allocation will not be modified.

"Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts." - this is a property of liquidity, not some unforeseeable outcome. PTS holders PAID 6X for this opportunity while AGS holders received a 6X discount in exchange for "locking in" and never being able to sell. Now you want to violate the social contract, gift AGS with liquidity, and also let them keep their 6X discount. Sorry, but that violates the social contract and is provably unfair.

First off - I am still waiting on the data that shows the 6x claim of yours.

Second off - you are comparing money that you hold (PTS) with a donation... money that you have given away expecting nothing in return...

Now if it was me I will give 3x more shares to people that  trusted me and donated expecting potentially nothing in return, than to people like you that hodled their money in their pockets...

But you do not stop there... you now claim that you deserve even more because of that? Your greed knows no boundaries....

I told you that the premium was an estimate made by another forum user and is irrelevant. We can calculate the exact premium that PTS users paid for their liquidity once you acknowledge it in the first place. You are arguing against yourself when you say that "I will give 3x more shares to people that  trusted me and donated expecting potentially nothing in return". Of course I agree that people who "lock in" and trust I3 with their funds would rationally expect a greater return.

The problem is that you want to remove that "trust" by violating the social contract after-the-fact. You want to make AGS like (just like PTS) but you want them to keep the discount that they received in exchange for being "locked in" to I3. You can't have it both ways. Either you trust I3 and lock in your shares in exchange for a steep discount (AGS), or you accept a lower rate of return in exchange for liquidity (PTS).