Quote from: Riverhead on October 25, 2014, 03:40:12 AM
The math in real time: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit#gid=0

Excellent, thank you!

Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 06:28:56 PM
BM said in mumble that he recommends the PTS/AGS 10/10% continue indefinitely, instead of honoring BitShares. If they are not liquid it would not be a way to buy in though.

I can understand that. We can take BM's recommendation under consideration but, not to be cold, but from a PTS/AGS perspective he no longer works here. He and Stan are disbanding III, and their obligations to the social contract, to work for the SuperDAC. That's not a slam on BM or III - there is no expectation of indentured servitude. In the paradigm of a traditional company the head designer, thought leader, and developer have left and taken their core team with them.

So does PTS/AGS die with them? Are the people that feel most abandoned willing to pick up the mantle and make something of the legacy III has left behind? Only time will tell I guess.

Quote from: amencon on October 25, 2014, 02:08:31 AM

Someone did the math in another thread (forget which now) but I believe it was around 100BTS per PTS and 80something per AGS.  I think the higher PTS number was due to not having all 2b mined yet.

The math in real time: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit#gid=0

let AGS and PTS die??
let i3 die!!!!

Quote from: Tuck Fheman on October 25, 2014, 01:59:39 AM

Quote from: biophil on October 24, 2014, 02:26:21 PM

4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.

Could you elaborate on the bold text please. I'm still not clear on the math and I'm both pre/post-Feb28 PTS (10x more post-Feb28) and all post-Feb28 for AGS.

Does anyone know the actual # of shares per PTS/AGS a person will receive for each proposed allocation method?

The percentages aren't really helping me because I'm unclear on the #'s associated with those percentages.

Thanks for any help!

Someone did the math in another thread (forget which now) but I believe it was around 100BTS per PTS and 80something per AGS.  I think the higher PTS number was due to not having all 2b mined yet.

I have no recollection on how much BTSX pre-Feb PTS and AGS received on average but I'm sure someone has the numbers handy.

Quote from: biophil on October 24, 2014, 02:26:21 PM

4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.

Could you elaborate on the bold text please. I'm still not clear on the math and I'm both pre/post-Feb28 PTS (10x more post-Feb28) and all post-Feb28 for AGS.

Does anyone know the actual # of shares per PTS/AGS a person will receive for each proposed allocation method?

The percentages aren't really helping me because I'm unclear on the #'s associated with those percentages.

Thanks for any help!

Stock quantity Decide attitude
"20% to BTS, let AGS and PTS die" i think these guys have a lot AGS before feb28&at the same time have
a lot btsx but few pts&ags(after2.28)

Quote from: Pheonike on October 24, 2014, 02:39:55 PM
We should add if airdrop to AGS/pts then can not use bitusd.

don't forget   AGS fund Give birth to the  btsx

Btser here are  robbers，they are selfish,they have no right  to vote this thread

The Goal is to streamline our (BTS) message and market image.  They should drop 20% to BTS and "spin-off" AGS and PTS since there is so much resistance to shutting them down. 

By the way I have current investments in PTS. 

Edit: Also the "Bitshares" designator should be pulled from the names of  Bitshares PTS and Bitshares AGS products.   Additionally, third party users of the Bitshares tool kit should not be allowed to use "Bitshares" in their name ether, since BTS does not fully own them and can not control the product quality.  Instead they should be given the tag *powered by Bitshares*. 

These details are important to create the market clarity we are seeking. 

Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 06:28:56 PM

Quote from: Riverhead on October 24, 2014, 05:38:41 PM

Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 05:22:55 PM
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.

It could be argued that the only way to buy the GENESIS asset is with BTS so it's effectively adding a wasted step. However, it could also be argued that there is opportunity cost in holding GENESIS in the hopes a great new DAC comes along to increase its value or give you a cheaper foothold in the new product.

Also, it depends how we view the social contract: Which of these better captures the spirit?
(a) Early risk takers bought into an unknown team developing an unknown product with the promise their early risk would pay dividends for years in every new product.
(b) New DAC developers will want to airdrop to GENESIS holders because they'll gain instant community support and to some extent user base.

Either way if GENESIS is liquid it's a moot point. Those that view (a) would hold and those that view (b) would sell or buy with the market.

BM said in mumble that he recommends the PTS/AGS 10/10% continue indefinitely, instead of honoring BitShares. If they are not liquid it would not be a way to buy in though.

Yeah, I think if we continue with snapshots, at least one of the snapshotted assets needs to be liquid.

Quote from: Riverhead on October 24, 2014, 05:38:41 PM

Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 05:22:55 PM
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.

It could be argued that the only way to buy the GENESIS asset is with BTS so it's effectively adding a wasted step. However, it could also be argued that there is opportunity cost in holding GENESIS in the hopes a great new DAC comes along to increase its value or give you a cheaper foothold in the new product.

Also, it depends how we view the social contract: Which of these better captures the spirit?
(a) Early risk takers bought into an unknown team developing an unknown product with the promise their early risk would pay dividends for years in every new product.
(b) New DAC developers will want to airdrop to GENESIS holders because they'll gain instant community support and to some extent user base.

Either way if GENESIS is liquid it's a moot point. Those that view (a) would hold and those that view (b) would sell or buy with the market.

BM said in mumble that he recommends the PTS/AGS 10/10% continue indefinitely, instead of honoring BitShares. If they are not liquid it would not be a way to buy in though.

I have another opinion... now that ags/pts have been given BTS by dilution, you kill them off and introduce this concept: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10385.msg137696#msg137696

When a new DAC is proposed and developers need funds you DO NOT dilute BTS here, instead you raise funds by people buying shares... and those that buy shares and the DAC is successfull they will gain, and if the DAC is unsuccessful the coins are burned, thus adding some deflationary pressure to the inflationary dilution when a dac is merged.

If we offered 20% free to all BTS holders then it would be hard to get people to buy shares because they already get some for free... The BTS holders gain by the utility if and when a DAC is merged into BTS. Because we've created a superdac it negates the need for PTS/AGS and the social consensus comes in the form of a vote which chooses which proposals to allow and merge later.

That was the original intent of PTS/AGS anyway right, to raise funds for developers and give back shares? If you hold the superdac you gain via the new features being introduced. This was a onetime fund raising so that I3 was able to market the product and pay for developers to develop some new DACs but.. those funds don't help any third party developers that create new DACs so to me is a flawed business model.

Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 05:22:55 PM
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.

It could be argued that the only way to buy the GENESIS asset is with BTS so it's effectively adding a wasted step. However, it could also be argued that there is opportunity cost in holding GENESIS in the hopes a great new DAC comes along to increase its value or give you a cheaper foothold in the new product.

Also, it depends how we view the social contract: Which of these better captures the spirit?
(a) Early risk takers bought into an unknown team developing an unknown product with the promise their early risk would pay dividends for years in every new product.
(b) New DAC developers will want to airdrop to GENESIS holders because they'll gain instant community support and to some extent user base.

Either way if GENESIS is liquid it's a moot point. Those that view (a) would hold and those that view (b) would sell or buy with the market.

Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 05:19:17 PM
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.

Personally I would gain more from 3, but this would be tremendously myopic. We need to think big! In addition, if people want to honor AGS or PTS they can do so if they want; AGS is already in stone, and PTS will be soon.

This should be the accepted standard, IMO.

20% BTS is plenty.

PTS/AGS should be viewed as something completely optional, but an extremely valuable and available tool - especially in highly competitive areas and those looking for stakeholders with a techno/libertarian ethos and bias.