Soooo could this all be perhaps better handled by better educating shareholders on what the Reserve pool actually is and what impact it has on share value?

Quote from: dannotestein on February 06, 2016, 02:54:55 PM

Quote from: yvv on February 06, 2016, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 06, 2016, 11:40:57 AM
I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution.
It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds.
These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.

You have to distinguish between your personal funds, which you can sell upon your wish, and company funds, which can not be sold by yourself. Personal property and public property are different things.

Yes, they are different in this case because the value of the shareholder-owned  property (I think public property isn't the proper word here, since it implies it's owned by the public where it's in fact owned by the shareholders) is implicitly already valued into the price of all the privately held "shares". If the shareholder-owned property is used as payment to 3rd parties (or even as dividends to shareholders), the value of the privately held shares go down. This is the same reason that stocks drop in price ex-dividend.

Right, "public propety" is not a good wording. Reserve pool is mutual property of shareholders. It is different from personal funds of each shareholder.

Quote from: yvv on February 06, 2016, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 06, 2016, 11:40:57 AM
I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution.
It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds.
These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.

You have to distinguish between your personal funds, which you can sell upon your wish, and company funds, which can not be sold by yourself. Personal property and public property are different things.

Yes, they are different in this case because the value of the shareholder-owned  property (I think public property isn't the proper word here, since it implies it's owned by the public where it's in fact owned by the shareholders) is implicitly already valued into the price of all the privately held "shares". If the shareholder-owned property is used as payment to 3rd parties (or even as dividends to shareholders), the value of the privately held shares go down. This is the same reason that stocks drop in price ex-dividend.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 06, 2016, 11:40:57 AM
I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution.
It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds.
These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.

You have to distinguish between your personal funds, which you can sell upon your wish, and company funds, which can not be sold by yourself. Personal property and public property are different things.

Ща 97912 8088 79814662079 ш 89814520192 9 хххххх7лез 98

Quote from: Riverhead on February 06, 2016, 03:39:53 AM

Quote from: yvv on February 06, 2016, 03:09:43 AM

Quote from: Riverhead on February 06, 2016, 02:23:29 AM

Quote from: yvv on February 05, 2016, 11:11:28 PM
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.

I can't tell if this is for or against.

Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.

Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...

In order for pool funds to reach the market, they need to change hands. They need to go to personal accounts of witnesses and workers first. Then they become available to market supply. And it is fair to consider this funds only available. Unless you want to lie to yourself.

When a company buys back its own stock those shares are off the market. Do they still count towards supply? I honestly don't know but I feel the situation is analogous.

02 ш9 ш 89814520192 щ 9

Щцх

7 шезлонгих9 ш 079 65 890 шт 32 ухх9х цф  7лез 8088 8088 868055 9 и 869 и 869 777 9 и ш 9 [7 799 13 415 9th 80 99381 80 99 URL]ш шо ш зло 799 13 415 799 13 415 в ох ш г 799 13 415 означает 9 ш до г 97912 8088 79814662079 и зло шухова [/URL]7868з079 65 890 7868055 79814662079 7868055 ш ш055 22799 13 415 88щ2222]689754564514443264 ш9{[URL]799 13 415 88щ2222[/URL]8 08 8799 13 415 9287flkajhLKJHo32873JGF8 9 97912 8 799 13 415 988гг9

Quote from: yvv on February 05, 2016, 11:11:28 PM
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.

Зол Я 9 и в этом шт ш ох ш 7 шашкой >

Quote from: fuzzy on February 05, 2016, 08:51:47 PM

Quote from: Ander on February 05, 2016, 08:07:34 PM

Quote from: Riverhead on February 05, 2016, 06:36:10 PM

If I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.

What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.

Thoughts?

Hell no.

What would happen is that instead of having an $8M market cap at a 2.5B supply, we would go down to a $*M market cap for the 3.7B supply.


The only thing pulling a ripple did was make everyone hate them, remember? 



Furthermore, listing 3.7B supply of BTS would not be accurate, because this amount does not exist.  It would be like listing BTC's supply at 21M right now, and saying its market cap is 50% higher.

well it did one other thing oretty effectively...destroy a amassive headwind pushing us up past them.  had they not done that, i still suspect we would have stayed higher than them....but then again i could be wrong.

Quote from: Ander on February 05, 2016, 08:07:34 PM

Quote from: Riverhead on February 05, 2016, 06:36:10 PM

If I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.

What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.

Thoughts?

Hell no.

What would happen is that instead of having an $8M market cap at a 2.5B supply, we would go down to a $*M market cap for the 3.7B supply.


The only thing pulling a ripple did was make everyone hate them, remember? 



Furthermore, listing 3.7B supply of BTS would not be accurate, because this amount does not exist.  It would be like listing BTC's supply at 21M right now, and saying its market cap is 50% higher.

I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution.
It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds.
These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.

Quote from: yvv on February 06, 2016, 03:09:43 AM

Quote from: Riverhead on February 06, 2016, 02:23:29 AM

Quote from: yvv on February 05, 2016, 11:11:28 PM
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.

I can't tell if this is for or against.

Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.

Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...

In order for pool funds to reach the market, they need to change hands. They need to go to personal accounts of witnesses and workers first. Then they become available to market supply. And it is fair to consider this funds only available. Unless you want to lie to yourself.

When a company buys back its own stock those shares are off the market. Do they still count towards supply? I honestly don't know but I feel the situation is analogous.

Quote from: Riverhead on February 06, 2016, 02:23:29 AM

Quote from: yvv on February 05, 2016, 11:11:28 PM
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.

I can't tell if this is for or against.

Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.

Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...

In order for pool funds to reach the market, they need to change hands. They need to go to personal accounts of witnesses and workers first. Then they become available to market supply. And it is fair to consider this funds only available. Unless you want to lie to yourself.

Quote from: yvv on February 05, 2016, 11:11:28 PM
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.

I can't tell if this is for or against.

Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.

Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...

In the case of ripple, founders and ripple labs do sell their XRP at the market, hence these XRP are actually a part of available supply. This is a big problem of ripple.

I've thought about the same thing, Riverhead, but I think the essential issue is the reserve BTS is sort of "owned" by all the BTS holders (as they can vote to have it used to their benefit). So this is similar to when a company has purchased shares of it's own stock. In such a case, I think the valuation of the stock held by the company is implicitly priced into the value of the "regular" shares held by the shareholders.

In the case of ripple, I think the shares in question were held by founders, not by all the coin holders. In that case I think it's fair to count it as part of the supply (although maintaining a supply of your coin that's not generally known to the general public seems quite underhanded, if that's what happened). But I never paid close attention to what ripple was doing, so I'm not accusing anyone there of anything.

If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.

I also do not think this is a good idea.  I would like each of my bts to be worth more than 500 sats.