Quote from: Stan on June 23, 2014, 02:52:09 am

Quote from: pendragon3 on June 23, 2014, 02:35:28 am

Quote from: bytemaster on June 23, 2014, 02:08:53 am

Quote from: 天籁 on June 23, 2014, 02:03:26 am

You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!

Quote from: toast on June 23, 2014, 01:56:50 am

Quote

For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.

Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.

I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.

You have stake in them all.

What I would really like to see is this:

1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.

The challenges with this approach is:

1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates

You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.

"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?

To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."

If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.

Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.

Which is better?

1.  Use mining to gradually release the last 80% of shares along some front-loaded curve that burns all the money people are willing to pay for those shares.

2.  Have a developer keep the last 80% of shares to be spent along some front-loaded curve as the developer thinks is best to achieve success..

3.  Have the last 80% put in 101 spigots that dispense along some front-loaded curve as 101 elected delegates campaign and shareholders vote to get control of one of the spigots.

4.  Release all the shares up front leaving no operating budget and hope that someone will donate to maintain and grow the assets.

You don't have to choose.  All four are likely to be tried at some point.  Your task is to pick the winner(s).

We all know the drawbacks to mining-based approaches. But consider the drawbacks to front-loading 101 spigots at the scale of what I think you're envisioning. Just imagine the costly rent-seeking activities. influence costs, the wasteful campaigns that 100s delegates would run. Millions of dollars wasted by hundreds of people on campaigning and rent-seeking. Imagine the scams and frauds that a few bad apples would try to perpetrate, the disagreements and fights about broken promises, the lawsuits about privacy, libel, and such. Imagine all of that drama that DAC developers and the community would have to experience. Now multiply that by 10, 20, 30 DACs. Do you see the problem with this governance scheme? It would likely be a nightmare that would give Bitshares a black eye or two. Why endorse this type of system upfront?

Maybe in the future there would be a specialized DAC that really needs this type of funding model to raise 100s of millions of dollars for development or marketing by wasting 10s of millions on campaign spending. But that should be really up to the DAC developer. Why hardwire this problematic governance into the prototype DAC upfront?

3) BitShares XT will be the snapshot target for *all* subsequent BitShares X DACs. These won't appear until long after everyone understands BTS X.

Quote

- they don't give us the same oportunity ...

What does this mean? We're not getting any advantage, we are all investing personal income. You mean BTS trust should pay you also?