Quote from: alphaBar 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.

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)

Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 01:38:53 AM
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.

Well put.

If all we have is a collection of seemingly random rationales and limited time, 50-50 is the obvious choice.

Even if your number was verifiable, you have unquantifiable subjective factors on both sides.

If someone has verifiable numbers and strong rationale for AGS vs PTS I'd reconsider.

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.

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.

You could argue that AGS is given slightly less or that they have a period of time before they can access it I guess.

Edit: Oh I misunderstood. You're arguing pre BTS snapshot should get should get 6.6x AGS

Nah I would just make AGS wait longer before they could claim maybe.

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.

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.

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"

As much as I'd benefit from such a proposal, I say treat them equally.

I'm willing to concede to AGS holders.

Give them one last kickback and destroy AGS/PTS.

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.