Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - alphaBar

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
196
General Discussion / Approval voting and negative votes
« on: October 24, 2014, 01:17:48 am »
I was thinking about my voting habits in BTSX and it dawned on me that I've never voted for anywhere near 101 delegates. I understand that approval voting is probably the best option, but one of the benefits of allowing negative votes is the fact that "bad actors" can be voted out quickly. One thing many people do not realize is that in order to most effectively "vote out" a bad actor in approval voting, you MUST submit at least 101 positive votes. If your "positive" votes are already ranked higher than the delegate you wish to vote out (very likely), your votes have no net effect on the ability of the community to remove the "bad actor". The attention span of the average person is too short to track 101 trusted delegates, and most people will converge on a handful of trusted delegates in the long run. The result is that delegates ranked in the bottom half of the 101 active delegates are actually selected by a tiny minority of stakeholders. Even those who wish to "vote them out" are probably unknowingly having no effect on the ranking of those "bad actor" delegates.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently the "negative" vote has no impact unless you select "Vote as Delegates Recommended," an option that many/most users do not select. I propose changing the default behavior of the negative vote in the client to the following:

*Allow a maximum of 101 positive votes and an unlimited number of negative votes
*If there are no negative votes the behavior of the client remains the same
*If there are any number of negative votes, the client always submits 101 positive votes. The positive votes are selected in the following way: The client "votes up" all positive votes selected by the user (N), plus uses the remaining votes (101-N) to vote up delegates ranked lower than the first negative vote. In this way, the client interprets the user's intent (to vote down a delegate) and selects the best slate of positive votes to make that outcome occur.

I haven't read through all of the discussions on the voting algorithm so please correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

197
General Discussion / Re: Serving the interest of the wealthy minority
« on: October 23, 2014, 07:37:10 pm »
To address your point about "wealth envy": your so-called "liquidity benefit" of moving to the superDAC is only a benefit for the extremely wealthy. The rest of us don't have a liquidity problem in PTS today. In fact the very thing that you are promoting as a "benefit" (linear vesting) actually harms the majority of users by making them IL-liquid. In other words, there is absolutely no justifiable reason to "vest" PTS and DNS which are already liquid for the vast majority of their stakeholders.

198
General Discussion / Re: Serving the interest of the wealthy minority
« on: October 23, 2014, 06:44:28 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on October 23, 2014, 06:19:39 pm
The wealthy still cannot exit PTS to get their liquidity now while the small guy can... if you want your liquidity you can get it for a 10% discount.  Many large players are buying for a 10% discount... so this gives the little guy a chance to get out and have their liquidity.

Giving the wealthy instant liquidity would hurt the little guy in the new system.... this locks up funds and helps everyone.

Wealth envy doesn't help here...

At this point the discount is based solely on the price of liquidity. So what you are effectively saying is that "we will take your liquidity from you, but that is ok because you can buy it back at a 10% discount!" You've missed the entire point which is that existing small share-holders suffer while existing large shareholders gain.

199
General Discussion / Re: Clarification on Vesting
« on: October 23, 2014, 06:37:54 pm »
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).

200
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 23, 2014, 06:31:40 pm »
Quote from: Xeldal on October 23, 2014, 01:07:17 pm
That's correct.  Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.

I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS.  I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal.  I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid.  It was just a matter of time.  I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust).  Knowing all this I still purchased PTS.  It was my decision, no one forced my hand. 

All the information was available.  I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future.  There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work.  If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.

It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.

Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.

Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".

Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).

201
General Discussion / Serving the interest of the wealthy minority
« on: October 23, 2014, 06:12:41 pm »
BM has repeatedly argued that current PTS is actually not very liquid and therefore PTS holders should be grateful to be "locked in" and "vested" in a more liquid BTS market. The crux of this argument is that, right now, you can't sell your PTS anyways since the market is too shallow to absorb any significant volume.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of PTS holders are small investors who could move in and out of their positions without significantly moving the market. This supposed "benefit" of liquidity in a deeper market is actually only a benefit for the handful of investors who (1) own extremely large amounts of PTS and (2) want the ability to rapidly invest/divest.

So it seems the entire structure of PTS allocation in the superDAC has been designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the average user.

Here's the trade-off for the vast majority of PTS users (95%):

* In the current PTS, average users do not face problems with liquidity.
* In the superDAC, average users will lose their liquidity by being "locked in" for 2 years.

Here's the trade-off for the extremely wealthy (top 5%):

* In the current PTS, wealthy users face problems with liquidity.
* In the superDAC, wealthy users are willing to "suffer" through the vesting period in exchange for something they don't currently have - liquidity.

Based on these arguments by BM, it appears that the proposed allocation for the superDAC was designed with the interests of the wealthy 5% superseding the interests of the majority of PTS users. Would love to hear a response other than "nothing is fair, we tried our best, deal with it", but I am not hopeful...

202
General Discussion / Re: BM:i tell you why you are the bigest bug of bts
« on: October 23, 2014, 05:34:36 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on October 23, 2014, 02:12:01 pm
Note to PTS holders... we didn't take your liquidity, we gave you liquidity.

PTS is liquid and remains liquid... holders were hoping for a future snapshot in a real DAC as obviously people don't want PTS just for PTS sake... until there is a "real dac" PTS holders are not really liquid.    Now they get gradual liquidity in a real DAC that is implementing all of the features they were hoping for. 

So you don't want to be locked in for a gradual 2 year release.... then sell to someone who is willing to be locked in for 2 years.  There are many buyers of PTS that are pricing in a discount for giving up liquidity and you have the option.    Be liquid and sell today... or get a larger stake over 2 years.

How presumptuous of you to think that the majority of PTS holders have such a large stake (like yourself) that they would be forced to "move the market" in order to liquidate their position. You are completely wrong about this, and you should start looking at the issue from the perspective of a person who owns a small amount (the majority of users) rather than assuming everyone has a 10% stake (like I3). For the average investor (80% of PTS users), you have taken their liquidity and locked them in for two years. Welfare for the rich strikes again. On the flipside you have granted AGS liquidity at the expense of PTS and in violation of the social contract. Thanks for the "gift" of sell pressure that was never supposed to exist.

Lastly I will say that the sharedrop model dies with this proposal. Any serious DAC that wants to use the Bitshares Toolkit will compete at least partially with the superDAC and would be insane to sharedrop to their direct competitor. This is not just consolidation, it is a hostile takeover combined with a complete abandonment of the "DAC platform" model which encouraged third parties to build on the Toolkit. Before this nonsense if BitsharesX failed there was always a possibility that another banking DAC would fork the Toolkit and sharedrop to PTS/AGS. In this way, PTS/AGS was a sort of hedge against the failure of any one DAC and was an avenue for at least partial diversification. Consolidating VOTE, DNS, and any other DACs is not as much of an issue (if done fairly and correctly), but I'm still in favor of PTS/AGS being moved to a bare GENESIS chain. My 2 cents.

203
General Discussion / Re: Clarification on Vesting
« on: October 22, 2014, 10:03:57 pm »
Quote from: amencon on October 22, 2014, 09:44:20 pm
Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 09:29:49 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 08:37:34 pm

So you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.

Everyone knew what they were getting into. The market created a different value for each. Trying to re-write the rules with a discount now makes little sense.
Apparently nobody knew what they were getting into, this whole process is already re-writing all the rules, not even sure what you are talking about here.

If everyone knew there was going to be a single DAC and that PTS and AGS would be converted into the same token with the same properties and they could buy PTS or AGS with AGS getting 6x the stake for the investment in that DAC do you think anyone at all would have invested in PTS?  I certainly wouldn't have.


 +5%

204
General Discussion / Re: Clarification on Vesting
« 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.

205
General Discussion / Re: Clarification on Vesting
« on: October 22, 2014, 08:37:34 pm »
Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 05:49:24 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 05:15:53 pm

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."

AGS was flawed and it continued on for so long that it became a better deal. The Social Consensus never included any discount. Nor has there ever been talk of one until now from you, after the fact. AGS liqudity has been discussed many times. Just as a PTS buyout has been discussed as one possibility.

So you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.

206
General Discussion / Re: Proposal for a more fair allocation than Bytemaster's proposal
« on: October 22, 2014, 05:23:26 pm »
Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 05:22:03 pm
While this might be a more fair allocation, the markets have already adjusted to BMs proposal. If the proposal was changed you cannot be sure that the compensation would even go to those who initally lost.

By this argument we can never change anything after it has initially been proposed.

207
General Discussion / Re: Proposal for a more fair allocation than Bytemaster's proposal
« on: October 22, 2014, 05:22:43 pm »
Thank you for at least acknowledging some of the blatant unfairness of the prior proposal.

208
General Discussion / Re: Clarification on Vesting
« 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."

209
General Discussion / Re: Clarification on Vesting
« on: October 22, 2014, 04:47:55 pm »
Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 04:35:28 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:25:56 pm
Hey Dan, why don't you give us the logic behind your "vesting" proposal. PTS holders paid a 6X premium for their liquidity while AGS holders received a 6X discount for being "locked in". Now, as the largest holder of AGS, you want to "gift" liquidity to AGS AND keep your 6X discount. All at the expense of everyone else in the superDAC. Even worse, the new proposal actually reverses PTS liquidity by locking them into a vesting period.

Rather than giving me the standard "it hurts me more than it hurts you" answer, why don't tell us simply - how can the value of liquidity be ZERO? What rational justification do you have for taking out the only differentiating factor between AGS and PTS (actually reversing them in a sense) and at the same time allowing AGS to keep the 6X discount for being "locked in"?

This idea of a discount for liquidity is interesting. I haven't seen it before. It seems that you are arbitrarily valuing the liquidity, while you could just as easily pick 10 other aspects of these stakes to discount/devalue for various reasons. Really, if you were to do this, then it would be the equivalent of a PTS premium. What the hell are PTS holders expecting? We've got our DNS, Vote, Music, and BTSX stakes already. Does anyone else here see too many other new DACs on the horizon? These are the profitable ones. One could easily make the argument that PTS holders are getting a major gift here. From holding something that could be utterly worthless (I don't see BitShares Me or Play on the near horizon, do you?), this merger gives PTS additional stake in BitShares X. Are you kidding? Give me your Alta Vista shares; here's some Google.

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.

210
General Discussion / New proposal: separation of responsibilities
« on: October 22, 2014, 04:38:44 pm »
1) PTS and AGS are merged into a single liquid asset. AGS holders pay a premium (to be decided) for their newly granted liquidity. This new token is called Bitshares Genesis. This enables 3rd party DACs to use the Bitshares Toolkit without literally funding their competition.

2) All other I3 supported DACs can be merged (if their stakeholders approve) into a single token called Bitshares (BTS).

3) We can set out a voting period and people who wish to participate can vote with their stake during this period by broadcasting their vote on the relevant blockchain. I3 will not participate in the voting, especially not with donated funds.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 23 queries.