Quote from: sumantso on December 28, 2014, 05:29:27 PM

Quote from: delulo on December 28, 2014, 03:23:58 PM
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.

The question is, will a 100% BTS make you unhappy?

We know a lot of the debate was not due to the ratios but due to AGS/PTS being considered.

YES,this is not good :P

Quote from: delulo on December 28, 2014, 03:23:58 PM
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.

The question is, will a 100% BTS make you unhappy?

We know a lot of the debate was not due to the ratios but due to AGS/PTS being considered.

Quote from: cube on December 28, 2014, 03:35:14 PM

Quote from: delulo on December 28, 2014, 03:23:58 PM
..
+5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.

I absolutely agree.

Everyone should be heavily invested in BTS. This is the BTS forum, right?

Quote from: delulo on December 28, 2014, 03:23:58 PM
..
+5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.

I absolutely agree.

Quote from: Agent86 on December 26, 2014, 08:19:51 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 26, 2014, 05:41:54 PM

I certainly recognize that I did blame others for their response and that in general I have no one to blame but myself.   I appreciate that you recognize our INTENT is do do well by all and that we cannot possibly know others expect. 

One thing I have learned is that changing anything is bad and I am loath to do it even if the original decision was a mistake.   

I would much rather not be the one to make decisions because it is easy to critique but difficult to decide.   I also don't want to let the squeaky wheel rule the day just because they complain the loudest.   So it is a real challenge to determine where the AGGREGATE PUBLIC OPINION falls. 

If changing to a 100% BTS allocation would make everyone happy it would be a no brainer.  I am not in this to pick favorites. 

So is there any objection to a 100% BTS allocation, if so please speak up now.

I am actually thinking about allocating 10% to nullstreet leaders and 10% to Chinese community leaders and 10% to core developers and 10% AGS 10% PTS and 50% to BTS.   This way the key players all have something to work with.

My only fear in changing anything is that it will just result in a DIFFERENT PR mess.    Can you all prove to me that the PR would be better by changing it now than by letting it ride?

My prediction is that if we were to exclude AGS / PTS all together that many people will create just as much negative PR.

Damage control is never fun and not as effective as avoiding the problems in the first place.  But I think the biggest danger right now is people just feel like they are not being heard; they feel like the devs can't seem to understand where they are coming from or don't care.  Some might feel disrespected.  This is a danger because that is when people give up on arguing and just sell (arguing is a lot of work).

So with that in mind, I think making a change now will be a net positive and shows a willingness to listen.  I think even considering that 100% BTS is a change of course for Devshares distribution, it would still have a lot of support.  I think there are other distributions that would have been fine if it was the original plan but I think at this point I would go for simplicity.

+5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone happy.

@pendragon3 In the event that a dev suggests they are short overall or want a special exercise that needs a large sum, they just need to ask and I'd expect we'd all willingly throw DVS at them.. but then I'd also expect devs will have enough BTS already too.

I respectfully disagree. If the goal of Devshares is to enable rigorous testing, and the testers will be mostly devs or large BTS holders, it makes little sense to sharedrop 100% to them. It would give testers a perverse incentive to not do any really revealing tests in the wild that could break things and jeopardize the value of their Devshares.
Having said that, I think a nonzero allocation to BTS would be reasonable. The balanced sharedrop originally proposed (1/3 to each of BTS, PTS, AGS) keeps things simple and makes sense to me.

Quote from: sumantso on December 27, 2014, 04:27:39 PM

Quote from: fluxer555 on December 27, 2014, 04:03:00 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 27, 2014, 06:44:09 AM
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.

Then don't set any by sharedropping to PTS and AGS!

BM has said he is considering sharedropping 100% on BTS. He wants to gauge the reaction before doing so.

100% to BTS makes totally sense (much more for DVS since it is BTS testnet and I assume the BTS delegates will be the major testers)

Quote from: fluxer555 on December 27, 2014, 04:03:00 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 27, 2014, 06:44:09 AM
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.

Then don't set any by sharedropping to PTS and AGS!

BM has said he is considering sharedropping 100% on BTS. He wants to gauge the reaction before doing so.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 27, 2014, 06:44:09 AM
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.

Then don't set any by sharedropping to PTS and AGS!

Cut the Gordian knot first and then move on!

Sharedrop to all dpos "coins" marketcap weighted at the time of any kind of  sharedrop  !!! That's really fair ...  for example the total market cap for dpos "coins" is $100 millions...$40 millions BTS ,  $10 millions PTS, $20 millions PLAY, $30 millions MUSIC... that means a sharedrop like this: 40% to BTS, 10% to PTS,  20% to PLAY, 30% to MUSIC...  ;)

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

Quote from: bytemaster on December 27, 2014, 06:44:09 AM
I apriciate everyones concern and feedback, but please back off.  We all get the point and this discussion is interfering with actual productive R&D.   

If we are talking about principles here:

1) PTS should live on and be supported by who ever wants to buy in / share drop to it.
2) BTS should ask for a reasonable recognition (20% or less) share drop in future chains.
3) AGS is what it is. It is just another share drop target.   I personally thing PTS should have share dropped 10% on AGS for funding its upgrade and freeing it from mining.   
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.

Not necessarily what I wanted to hear but agree this has been argued out and it's time to move on.

Quote from: alphaBar on December 27, 2014, 08:47:40 AM

Quote from: jshow5555 on December 27, 2014, 06:54:02 AM
WOW!!!! - That is humongous nail in the alphaBar's coffin  :)

Ask somebody to lock this thread.
I will delete the other(as I started it)!

Oh brother, I guess we can ignore everything bm has ever said that directly contradicts your entire argument (including point #1 "PTS should live on...") because his opinion on a 10% sharedrop differed from ours. Your sensationalism is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about PTS being "absorbed", "dead", "bought out" and every other mischaracterization of Stan and Dan's words you've made in this thread.

It does make it pretty funny when PTS asks other projects to honour the social consensus when they blatantly flout it.

Quote from: jshow5555 on December 27, 2014, 06:54:02 AM
WOW!!!! - That is humongous nail in the alphaBar's coffin  :)

Ask somebody to lock this thread.
I will delete the other(as I started it)!

Oh brother, I guess we can ignore everything bm has ever said that directly contradicts your entire argument (including point #1 "PTS should live on...") because his opinion on a 10% sharedrop differed from ours. Your sensationalism is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about PTS being "absorbed", "dead", "bought out" and every other mischaracterization of Stan and Dan's words you've made in this thread.

I dont care about all this lol. Happy hollidays crew and co <3