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 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22
226
General Discussion / Re: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:59:07 pm »
Quote from: Stan on October 21, 2014, 12:58:07 pm
Quote from: sumantso on October 21, 2014, 12:09:41 pm
Still can't decide what will all these lead to. I am spread out across BTSX/AGS/PTS so wouldn't be too bad for me.

Anyway, the community should have listened to me when I was raising concern along with a suggestion asking it to be debated https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53219#msg53219

Its funny the responses then

Quote from: xeroc on April 17, 2014, 01:50:52 pm
changing the social contract is suicide and the devs know that very well and stated several times in this board that it will not happen!

Quote from: Stan on April 17, 2014, 03:00:38 pm


The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.

I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.

Remember that there is more to that proposition than just the initial distribution, which happened faithfully as stated above.

Also stated was that we were building an unmanned company guided by the metaphor of a business, not a currency.

Businesses do value infusions to grow and compete.  Our biggest commitment is to grow and compete. All decisions must be viewed in the light of what maximizes shareholder value.  Thus the proposal is completely consistent with that. 

Semper Fi.    :)

Stan - maximizing shareholder value is fine as long as each shareholder has the same class of shares and therefore the same representation. When you start wielding your influence to devalue one company at the expense of another you are no longer maximizing shareholder value. Making AGS liquid at the expense of everyone else and defying the social contract to "gift" one group at the expense of another is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority", NOT mutually beneficial market forces.

227
General Discussion / Re: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:37:36 pm »
Quote from: gamey on October 21, 2014, 03:30:28 pm

The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX.  So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX.  Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.

Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS. 

I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.

I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%

228
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:25:43 pm »
Quote from: Ander on October 21, 2014, 07:09:19 pm
PTS allocation should have no lockout period, then it is fair.

It will be priced in immediately. Liquidity has significant value. No rational person can deny this.

229
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:11:22 pm »
Quote from: tonyk on October 21, 2014, 04:48:50 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 12:41:10 am
It was stated on this forum that each dollar of AGS donated prior to Feb 28th was equal to $6.6 of PTS. I think we can all agree that this difference was SOLELY due to the fact that PTS is liquid and AGS is illiquid.

It stands to reason that any plan for converting AGS to a liquid asset should provide exactly 6.6X greater equity for each converted pre-snapshot PTS. In other words, pre-snapshot PTS should receive 6.6X greater equity in the new DAC to offset the "gift" of liquidity granted to AGS holders. 6.6X is in fact the quantifiable "value" of liquidity, as proven by the market price.

Let's ignore post-snapshot PTS for the time being and talk about why this does or does not make sense.
I already stated that it is impossible to have any distribution that will be 'fair' to everybody. In this regard I am content with any semi-fair, semi-reasonably distribution...
That said,  this is one of the most ridiculous and illogical arguments I have read.

Ok then, you tell me what the value should be. There is nothing "fair" or "semi-fair" about suddenly dropping a 16,000BTC liquidity bomb on PTS holders in exchange for literally nothing. That is what you're proposing, but I'm the one who is illogical?

230
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:06:23 pm »
Quote from: NewMine on October 21, 2014, 04:54:55 pm
I think We missed the point.

It doesn't matter about donated PTS prices. It is about what PTS holders got for holding through FEb 28.

If the average PTS price was $15 and you held through feb28 you paid more.

$pre28PTS -$post28PTS is the amount a PTS paid for their BTSX shares/PTS.

Agreed on all counts. My point was not about how we determine the value of liquidity, that can be discussed. My main point was that liquidity surely does not have a value of ZERO, as is being proposed now.

231
General Discussion / Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« on: October 21, 2014, 04:44:13 pm »
Quote from: JoeyD on October 21, 2014, 04:28:39 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 03:54:03 pm
Quote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:14:07 pm
Quote from: dlh on October 21, 2014, 02:10:44 pm
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?

I still do not see how it is unfair as those who donated to AGS still did so with the knowledge that they were risking FAR more than PTS.  PTS holders who have no AGS will have a hard time understanding that the relative risk they had by holding PTS could be liquidated at any time during the most critical growth phases of the project (when risk was Highest)...AGS knew the risk and took it anyway fully expecting to never be made liquid.  So to me it comes down to loyalty (and if loyalty deserves higher rewards)...but that is just me and as you probably know by now I'm borderline crazy in my loyalties sometimes. 

P.S.  even if AGS are made liquid, I have no intention of liquidating them.  I want to see what an older, wiser Bytemaster has in store for me 15 years from now...

When I see comments like this I really lose faith in this forum... Let me explain it very simply for you:

Your "high risk" investment in AGS was based on a social contract that required you to be "locked in" to your investment perpetually. In exchange for this "high risk" investment, you received 6X, let me repeat - 6 times, more equity than PTS investors for every dollar you spent. As a result, you now own 6X more BTSX for every dollar you invested. Now you are proposing that we "gift" AGS holders the liquidity of PTS, violate the social contract, AND allow you to maintain your 6X equity in not only future DACS, but also BTSX! So you get to double dip into BTSX, you get liquidity, you keep your 6X equity, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and sadly at the expense of PTS holders when half of your friends liquidate (please don't argue this if you value your reputation).

Still don't see it?

So how much do you think your PTS and resulting BTSX stake was worth without AGS? AGS donators could just as well turn around and fling your argument right back at you. How much of the development was actually paid for with PTS? AGS could argue that PTS are essentially free-loaders, but I don't see how that will improve this discussion all that much.

Credibility is worthless on forums anyway, only arguments should count in this. I personally don't care much for people flaunting their so called reputation and credibility anyway and I hope that will never turn into the accepted measuring stick. Eventhough I'm proven wrong time and time again.

You're right Joey. By that logic let's just liquidate PTS to zero and give AGS everything. </s>

I feel like I am arguing with my high school ex-girlfriend here. No logic, no metrics, no data. Just "where would you be without me!" The market return was higher for AGS based on the increased risk of no liquidity. If you want to "gift" them liquidity, their equity should be adjusted downward to match PTS.

232
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 04:39:56 pm »
Quote from: NewMine on October 21, 2014, 04:30:35 pm
Quote from: roadkill on October 21, 2014, 04:10:14 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 03:44:45 pm
Whether there were 100 DACs or just BTSX, the point is that AGS was given 6X the equity of PTS solely because they chose to be "locked in". Now we're gifting them the liquidity of PTS and they get to keep the 6X? That is provably unfair... but I'm sure bytemaster will not bless us with his logic on this one other than saying, "it's the best we can do." Sad for a computer scientist to ignore simple logic in this way...

http://www1.agsexplorer.com/
5,625.02597337 BTC donated for 1,000,000.0 AGS
415,218.03087392 PTS donated for 1,000,000.0 AGS

177.7 AGS per BTC donated
2.408 AGS per PTS donated

Wheres the 6X

I am not sure.

You have to know the prices if BTC and PTS to figure it out realisticly.

Say BTC was $600 on average.

$600/177AGS = ~3.4 dollars per AGS

Say PTS was $12 on average

$12/2.4AGS = ~$5/AGS

By those calculations PTS about 30% more for an AGS based on those numbers.

Could be wrong though.

Yes, you are way off. I just did a rough estimate and it was more than double, but less than 6X. Irrelevant to the point I'm making though. We all agree AGS received a bigger stake for greater risk. If you want to take away their risk, the stake must be adjusted accordingly.

233
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 04:38:01 pm »
Quote from: roadkill on October 21, 2014, 04:10:14 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 03:44:45 pm
Whether there were 100 DACs or just BTSX, the point is that AGS was given 6X the equity of PTS solely because they chose to be "locked in". Now we're gifting them the liquidity of PTS and they get to keep the 6X? That is provably unfair... but I'm sure bytemaster will not bless us with his logic on this one other than saying, "it's the best we can do." Sad for a computer scientist to ignore simple logic in this way...

http://www1.agsexplorer.com/
5,625.02597337 BTC donated for 1,000,000.0 AGS
415,218.03087392 PTS donated for 1,000,000.0 AGS

177.7 AGS per BTC donated
2.408 AGS per PTS donated

Wheres the 6X

Somebody posted that number in another thread, not confirming it's accuracy. The point is that they received a bigger stake in exchange for taking the risk of perpetual illiquidity. If you want to gift them the liquidity, their stake should be adjusted accordingly. These were the terms of the social contract. There is no logic in doing it any other way.




234
General Discussion / Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« on: October 21, 2014, 03:54:03 pm »
Quote from: fuzzy on October 21, 2014, 02:14:07 pm
Quote from: dlh on October 21, 2014, 02:10:44 pm
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?

I still do not see how it is unfair as those who donated to AGS still did so with the knowledge that they were risking FAR more than PTS.  PTS holders who have no AGS will have a hard time understanding that the relative risk they had by holding PTS could be liquidated at any time during the most critical growth phases of the project (when risk was Highest)...AGS knew the risk and took it anyway fully expecting to never be made liquid.  So to me it comes down to loyalty (and if loyalty deserves higher rewards)...but that is just me and as you probably know by now I'm borderline crazy in my loyalties sometimes. 

P.S.  even if AGS are made liquid, I have no intention of liquidating them.  I want to see what an older, wiser Bytemaster has in store for me 15 years from now...

When I see comments like this I really lose faith in this forum... Let me explain it very simply for you:

Your "high risk" investment in AGS was based on a social contract that required you to be "locked in" to your investment perpetually. In exchange for this "high risk" investment, you received 6X, let me repeat - 6 times, more equity than PTS investors for every dollar you spent. As a result, you now own 6X more BTSX for every dollar you invested. Now you are proposing that we "gift" AGS holders the liquidity of PTS, violate the social contract, AND allow you to maintain your 6X equity in not only future DACS, but also BTSX! So you get to double dip into BTSX, you get liquidity, you keep your 6X equity, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and sadly at the expense of PTS holders when half of your friends liquidate (please don't argue this if you value your reputation).

Still don't see it?

235
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 03:44:45 pm »
Quote from: oco101 on October 21, 2014, 03:18:37 am
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 02:42:03 am
AGSers already received 6X more in every issued DAC, including BTSX.

What others DACs ?

DNS is merge and what left is Music. Music does't change the deal for PTS holder or AGS holders so it does not count.

Whether there were 100 DACs or just BTSX, the point is that AGS was given 6X the equity of PTS solely because they chose to be "locked in". Now we're gifting them the liquidity of PTS and they get to keep the 6X? That is provably unfair... but I'm sure bytemaster will not bless us with his logic on this one other than saying, "it's the best we can do." Sad for a computer scientist to ignore simple logic in this way...

236
General Discussion / Re: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?
« on: October 21, 2014, 05:47:37 am »
Guys, I am starting to understand what you're saying, and let me tell you - it FEELS SO GOOD. But I just realized that you aren't doing enough consolidating. What we really need to do is give all three a completely EQUAL distribution:

1/3 BTSX
1/3 AGS
1/3 PTS

Forget about the social contract - this is the FAIREST solution because it is EQUAL. You guys decided to make AGS and PTS the same (because equal is fair), but I say DON'T STOP THERE! I know, I know, some of you may say that this is not fair because it changes the value proposition of BTSX. This is totally false! Just like AGS, the social contract is totally optional because we're not a currency, we're a company! Companies can do wutever LOL.

Anyways, today is about EQUALITY. AGS is now magically liquid, yay! Transfer of wealth you say? I say "we're a company, idiot!" To da moon!

237
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 02:42:03 am »
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 21, 2014, 02:04:55 am
Yeah as I said above you could potentially give them less or make them wait longer. The AGSers are the real long term believers and supporters of DACs with a lot of faith in BM so on the one hand they deserve more on the other hand you can err on the side of giving them less as we're the most likely to not quibble over a few % and support BTS regardless.

However looking at PTS price it's holding at round 10% of BTSX price so you could argue that's the region the market is expecting.

So somewhere in that region 8-10% each, 50/50 is simplest & is going to be generally acceptable imo.

(I have equalish BTSX & AGS % but no PTS)

My point in making this thread is that a 50/50 split between AGS and PTS is provably unfair. AGSers already received 6X more in every issued DAC, including BTSX. The 6X multiplier was due solely to the fact that AGS is illiquid and that AGS "donation" was perpetual and non-transferable. Now that people are proposing that we "gift" them all of the benefits of PTS (ie, liquidity), the 6X multiplier should also be retracted.

This is truly one of the failures of democracy at work. Redistribution of wealth at the expense of the less-vocal minority. The people who are checking these forums with enough consistency to "catch" this scheme in progress are those who are, most likely, heavily invested in AGS. Meanwhile, new users, later adopters, and less invested individuals (PTS users, those who are more objective AND more likely to affect our reputation outside of this closed circle) are shafted by the circle jerk that this has turned into. I'm mostly entertained by the whole thing, although I hate to see a wasted opportunity.

238
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 01:50:12 am »
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 21, 2014, 01:46:17 am
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 01:38:53 am
Quote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 01:27:42 am
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 12:41:10 am
It was stated on this forum that each dollar of AGS donated prior to Feb 28th was equal to $6.6 of PTS. I think we can all agree that this difference was SOLELY due to the fact that PTS is liquid and AGS is illiquid.

It stands to reason that any plan for converting AGS to a liquid asset should provide exactly 6.6X greater equity for each converted pre-snapshot PTS. In other words, pre-snapshot PTS should receive 6.6X greater equity in the new DAC to offset the "gift" of liquidity granted to AGS holders. 6.6X is in fact the quantifiable "value" of liquidity, as proven by the market price.

Let's ignore post-snapshot PTS for the time being and talk about why this does or does not make sense.

Please state your "disclosure"

My "disclosure" is irrelevant and, even if relevant, unverifiable. I'd just like to hear the rationale for the seemingly random, "equal", or other allocations. Love it or hate it I've provided an objective metric. If you disagree, tell me why I'm wrong.

Pre-snapshot, Post-Snapshot PTS? None of them are honoured. PTS is liquid. It only has value if you currently hold it. The people who held PTS pre-snapshot are able to get a stake and then sell the PTS for it's residual value or continue holding it anytime you sold PTS you received fair value. Only people that currently hold PTS are going to be given a BTS stake that is an approximation of fair value.

Perfectly valid point, and hints at an issue that I tried to avoid (at least initially). But doesn't address the main point which is the very real value of the "gift" of liquidity given to AGS holders.

239
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 01:42:54 am »
My point is that liquidity has a value which should be accounted for. Instead of making up numbers, let's establish a floor and ceiling on that value. Then we can claim to be "fair" in our allocation. Equal allocation to AGS/PTS is one of the only provably UNfair allocations, since it assigns zero value to the liquidity gifted to AGS.

240
General Discussion / Re: Liquid vs. Illiquid AGS
« on: October 21, 2014, 01:38:53 am »
Quote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 01:27:42 am
Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 12:41:10 am
It was stated on this forum that each dollar of AGS donated prior to Feb 28th was equal to $6.6 of PTS. I think we can all agree that this difference was SOLELY due to the fact that PTS is liquid and AGS is illiquid.

It stands to reason that any plan for converting AGS to a liquid asset should provide exactly 6.6X greater equity for each converted pre-snapshot PTS. In other words, pre-snapshot PTS should receive 6.6X greater equity in the new DAC to offset the "gift" of liquidity granted to AGS holders. 6.6X is in fact the quantifiable "value" of liquidity, as proven by the market price.

Let's ignore post-snapshot PTS for the time being and talk about why this does or does not make sense.

Please state your "disclosure"

My "disclosure" is irrelevant and, even if relevant, unverifiable. I'd just like to hear the rationale for the seemingly random, "equal", or other allocations. Love it or hate it I've provided an objective metric. If you disagree, tell me why I'm wrong.

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

Page created in 0.193 seconds with 23 queries.