Congrats to drltc, & agent 86!

Why should a transaction for a FOREX trader be effected by someone who wants to buy the latest SnoopDogg single[/li][/list]

I agree, but won't this problem be alleviated once bit assets can be used to short bts(x), and also to short each other?

The long lockout period seems fair for AGS and even perhaps PTS, but I think the VOTE and DNS crowd were expecting liquidity sooner. Would it be too confusing to put the VOTE and DNS allocations on a shorter liquidity schedule, like perhaps 6 months?

I feel like this thread deserves another bump. Go BTS!

I love that these mysterious characters have been showing up in Decentralized Application's wake....
And whats more, this one 'be spouting mad Truthiness

Once the superDAC BitShares has been made manifest, AGS and PTS loses their purpose. The simple economics of metcalfes law states that it will never make any economic sense to make a seperate decentralized DAC that competes with the main one since each user in the new one will be much less valuable than if they simple were added to the main network. New DACs can be created as test runs, but their features should/will eventually be rolled into the relatively large network/userbase of BTS, once they have proven to be stable and profitable.

I agree there should be a one time "buyout" of PTS and AGS, but I don't think it should be done exactly at market evaluation. BTSX holders should be compensated for the fact that they had to suffer the "inflation shock" we've seen now, and should be allowed to buy PTS and AGS at a slightly discounted rate. In the end all shareholders will benefit massively from this consolidation.

Rune, I know you are fond of referencing Metacalfe’s law  but my understanding is that this applies only to networks of like kind. How are you defining the “value” of the PTS/AGS network? AGS and PTS are not even really a DAC, but more like a digital asset, a commodity with relative scarcity, whose value in the marketplace is backed by an “ethical” social contract. BTSX will never be a direct competitor to AGS or PTS, because one is a commodity and the other more akin to a stock. My argument was that it would be detrimental to betray the “trust” in that agreement by attempting to re-issue AGS and PTS into an arrangement that reduces their future-value proposition by a factor of 6!  If I owned physical gold that I intended to use to build a circuit board, and the trustee of my gold (vault owner, or whatever) decided to betray my contract and force me to withdraw in cash, that would be an ethical (not to mention contractual) breach.  Sure, I could just take the cash and buy some gold, but what if my gold was a unique and irreplaceable alloy of gold that would replicate itself under certain conditions….you get my point. Same value, different value proposition.

Bytemaster cannot serve two masters (pre. and post Feb 28 snapshot AGS). He cannot betray post snapshot donors by spending all of his time on BTSX. But BTSX obviously needs his full attention....What to do?

We now find ourselves with a dilemma, seeded in the infamous “original mistake” which accidentally solidified the core distribution of his most brilliant idea 4 months too early, and only ¼ way through the main funding drive. Fortunately, we now have an crisis/opportunity to 'course correct' this inauspicious division once and for all. Let us remain vigilant and cool headed as we chart the most sane course, perhaps even putting to the test some of the trust we have gained from one another.

There seems to be two “hot button” issues at this time. The first has apparently found general consensus that PTS and AGS should be combined and made liquid, albeit how and when are still up for debate. The second, and by far the most volatile, seems to revolve around the idea that dilution of BTSX is 'absolutely' needed at this time to fund further development. I am unaware that anyone close to the dev. team has said this outright, or has given explanation as to why all of the development funds have already been spent, but my suspicion is that this rumor of 'absolute need' evolved from the original dilemma of bytemaster's desire to be fair with the AGS (only using Jan 1- Feb 28 for BTSX). If this assumption is true, then I postulate that pressure for dilution might be lessened temporarily by finding a way for bytemaster to justify spending the post Feb. 28th AGS funds on BTSX without dishonoring the social contract.

One option he proposed is to absorb PTS and AGS through a one time BTSX dilution of  20% (based on the theory of their current market caps of approx. $5mil., $5mil., and $50 mil.). BTSX could be re-branded simply “Bitshares”, and then officially recommended as the 'grand proto-DAC' for future social-contractual obligations. There is a fatal flaw in this idea as it stands, namely that it would betray the relative value proposition of AGS and PTS and heavily skew all future DAC allocations towards  pre Feb. 28th snapshot holders. I will explain how this works in the next paragraph. If you already figured this out, skip to the following paragraph.

Assuming 2 million shares existed for each AGS and PTS, a minimum consensus allocation (10% each) 'guarantees'  1/ 20millionth allocation per share. If BTSX is diluted 20% to absorb AGS and PTS, they now have 1/6th the value proposition they once had, assuming BTSX is not diluted any further and manages to remain at the same price per share. So now when BTSX is snapshotted, the PTS or AGS holder will now receive 1/ 120millionth of the new DAC (per absorbed unit). Furthermore, this skews the relative allocation towards the original pre. Feb 28th snapshot holders. While there has been 10's of millions in trading volume since BTSX release, over 1/3 of the genesis shares are still unclaimed, so pre. Feb 28th AGS and PTS holders would be (unfairly) entitled to at least 1/3rd of the total proposed proto-dac.

It would be fine to re brand BTSX to just “bitshares”, but this blockchain should not totally replace AGS and PTS in the proposed manner. There is no reason, however,  that post Feb. 28th AGS and PTS holders cannot still be brought into the fold with a one time 20% dilution. There might not even be huge opposition form the pre-Feb 28thers, because naturally the entire AGS list would be allocated shares in the dilution, and all pre- 28th would be allocated additional shares for the trouble of welcoming their brethren from across the divide. Most might even be sympathetic to the cause..... I most certainly am. If this solves the short to medium term of fund shortage, then we might be able to explore the dilution debate in an atmosphere of less urgency, which would surely improve our chances of making the right decision. And who knows, in this crazy market what a few months might bring (come on, marketing!)

Anyways, I do apologize for the breach of protocol  I probably shouldn't have started a new thread for this, but I just wanted to sticky a reminder that things are never as bad as they seem. 

TRUE strength requires flexibility and rigidity to complement each other. The current AGS/PTS value proposition is a great model for this theory, right? AGS rigidly represents the most willing and generous of the early crowd, while PTS supports the ebb and flow of new interests. Take away the flexibility, and you have a set group of insiders that gets to reap disproportional benefits. Take away the rigidity, and your "mailing list" becomes less appealing to those wishing to secure *solid* support.

PTS is the only experiment of its kind (that I know of) in cryptospace that offers its participants such an exciting, unpredictable, and constantly renewable opportunity for share allocation. While it might be tempting to “lock in” our positions at this time,  has the current model of PTS been such a failure after only a year that it warrants complete reformulation? Is this a course that needs correction?

I am not arguing that the current POW shouldn't be migrated onto DPOS in some fashion. IMO through user-issued assets as part of the Bitshares ME genesis block (which would give a double incentive for PTS trading before the final snapshot). I am, however, less qualified to recommend migration tactics as I am to implore you all to consider the social implications of abandoning what I believe to be one of our best “opportunities” for newcomers. POW may be broken, but surely (Proto)shares is not!