I don't object to this.

But again， after dilution，new bts should be dedicated to new delegates， not to all delegates！The most worrying thing will be，after the presale of music DAC， BM would merge the music shares again by dilution. 

Quote from: ripplexiaoshan on November 01, 2014, 11:22:50 PM

Quote from: Rune on November 01, 2014, 05:04:59 PM
Non-developing delegates just need to choose a payrate below 3%, and they will inflate less money than is burned through transactions. Then it will be exactly like the old system. In fact, all current delegates will have their payrate changed to 3% so they do not inflate more than is burned.

If we only talk about the low payrate delegates, we know the old system is more self sustained and more similar to a centralized company, delegates get pay from the revenue of the company. However, for new system, even there is no transaction/delegates are not doing anything, delegates still get same pay. It's just not that reasonable.

I am suggesting from the perspective of psychology. The common users don't the math like us. If you want to rebate, look at the current price, then you will understand how common users make their decisions. They accept that their shares are diluted because we need great developers or market promoters to increase the total value of BTS, but they don't accept that delegates are continuously diluting their shares without doing additional work. Remember that BTS is a DAC, a DAC  should cover its operating cost by its revenue, instead of diluting.

The above opinion is the result of a fully discussion among many key Chinese community members, but it's just a proposal that we think is a little better than the current one.

Remember that BTS is a DAC, a DAC  should cover its operating cost by its revenue, instead of diluting.

Good point！Right！

Quote from: Rune on November 01, 2014, 05:04:59 PM
Non-developing delegates just need to choose a payrate below 3%, and they will inflate less money than is burned through transactions. Then it will be exactly like the old system. In fact, all current delegates will have their payrate changed to 3% so they do not inflate more than is burned.

If we only talk about the low payrate delegates, we know the old system is more self sustained and more similar to a centralized company, delegates get pay from the revenue of the company. However, for new system, even there is no transaction/delegates are not doing anything, delegates still get same pay. It's just not that reasonable.

I am suggesting from the perspective of psychology. The common users don't the math like us. If you want to rebate, look at the current price, then you will understand how common users make their decisions. They accept that their shares are diluted because we need great developers or market promoters to increase the total value of BTS, but they don't accept that delegates are continuously diluting their shares without doing additional work. Remember that BTS is a DAC, a DAC  should cover its operating cost by its revenue, instead of diluting.

The above opinion is the result of a fully discussion among many key Chinese community members, but it's just a proposal that we think is a little better than the current one.

What % of shares are set aside for development? How much separate funding is there?

Couldn't we come up with a 2 year funding plan using existing resources? No dilution required.

Then we can vote on Nov 5th 2015 whether we want to start dilution.

(It won't solve our current valuation problem but it could help a lot.)

Quote from: Rune on November 01, 2014, 05:04:59 PM
Non-developing delegates just need to choose a payrate below 3%, and they will inflate less money than is burned through transactions. Then it will be exactly like the old system. In fact, all current delegates will have their payrate changed to 3% so they do not inflate more than is burned.

Definately not 'exactly' the same.  the old systems delegate pay is contingent on transactions.  The new system is not.

I agree with OP about the psychological disconnect between burning and diluting.  I also think its important for the pay at a transaction clearing house(delegate) to be relative to the amount of transactions processed/fees collected.  There are at least two scenarios that I can come up with that could cause issue with the current solution.

If this type of approach cannot be implemented without excessive "bloat" or other technical problems, then I concede, as its not so completely terrible.

Quote from: Rune on November 01, 2014, 05:04:59 PM
Non-developing delegates just need to choose a payrate below 3%, and they will inflate less money than is burned through transactions. Then it will be exactly like the old system. In fact, all current delegates will have their payrate changed to 3% so they do not inflate more than is burned.

*agreed* and *confirmed*

Having two classes of delegates leads to unnecessary code bloat ..

It'll be enough if people started to think or calculate the numbers .. instead of falling into panic mode ..
I am not in panic mode .. I understand the tech and the economics

Non-developing delegates just need to choose a payrate below 3%, and they will inflate less money than is burned through transactions. Then it will be exactly like the old system. In fact, all current delegates will have their payrate changed to 3% so they do not inflate more than is burned.

agree  +5% +5% +5%

 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

 +5%

 +5%

 +5% +5%

Obviously all BTS holders are very sensitive to dilution, even though the diluted BTS are used to pay developers and delegates.

On the other hand, we need fund to support developers by voting them as delegates. To maintain the balance between satisfaction of shareholders and requirement for developing, we need to minimize the dilution.

For the new proposal by BM about the delegate payrate change, he mentioned that the transaction fee and fees from issuing assets will be burned. Burning is in an opposite direction from dilution, then what's the meaning of burning while diluting? People are not grateful to burning but hate dilution.

My suggestion is that we keep the low income delegates as before, i.e. delegates get their pay still from transaction fee, asset issuing fee, etc..  Meanwhile, we have a few positions for high income delegates, who needs the approval by voting, and their income accounts for the dilution.

In the way, the dilution is minimized, then all share holders are satisfied, because they know how the newly issued bts are spent.