Quote from: skyscraperfarms on July 31, 2014, 10:36:22 PM

Quote from: Empirical1 on July 31, 2014, 08:19:20 PM

Quote from: gamey on July 31, 2014, 08:11:43 PM
Instead you throw out a number that isn't even feasible and appears to be created for FUD. 

+5%

I don't perceive it as FUD. A good investor is a diligent one. If I3 holds a huge percentage from donated PTS, then this stuff should be on the ledger and transparent.  These things are supposed to be more transparent than they really are at this point. I'd like to know who controls the private keys to the BTSX/PTS, not an individual, the company. Is it Invictus Innovations, Invictus Hong Kong, Hyperatas, or the new DACsunlimited? When it comes to questions whose answers affect us investors, it's not wise to try and tell us to be quiet and go pound sand.

I have not seen anyone tell anyone else to "pound sand".  I also do not speak for I3 in any capacity.  I'm pretty much just another person with no insider info or anything else.  I do a lot of work on the wiki mainly from public information.  Please, ask questions.  All of your questions are valid.

  I was specifically referencing the fact that Adam started out with his "guess" that I3 owns at minimum 40% of BTSX.  Why not do the basic  math instead of throwing out widely off target numbers?  Is that "diligent" ??  To reach 40% that means AGS received 80% of PTS mined into existence on February 28th.  There is a history behind these sorts of posts by Adam.  He then acts puzzled like he doesn't understand why people are annoyed.  What is going on there ?  I don't understand him at all, but I will try to explain the perception of others so he doesn't constantly feel victimized on here.

Quote from: Empirical1 on July 31, 2014, 08:19:20 PM

Quote from: gamey on July 31, 2014, 08:11:43 PM
Instead you throw out a number that isn't even feasible and appears to be created for FUD. 

+5%

I don't perceive it as FUD. A good investor is a diligent one. If I3 holds a huge percentage from donated PTS, then this stuff should be on the ledger and transparent.  These things are supposed to be more transparent than they really are at this point. I'd like to know who controls the private keys to the BTSX/PTS, not an individual, the company. Is it Invictus Innovations, Invictus Hong Kong, Hyperatas, or the new DACsunlimited? When it comes to questions whose answers affect us investors, it's not wise to try and tell us to be quiet and go pound sand.

With that said, I don't see why they would need to hold it for any period of time. I actually think  the sooner they rid themselves of it the better. Look at BTC, you still have people crying over the fact that Satoshi still controls, supposedly, 1/2 a billion dollars in BTC.  I do think the intentions should be known, whether it's sell now, later or all the time slowly.

Quote from: gamey on July 31, 2014, 08:11:43 PM
Instead you throw out a number that isn't even feasible and appears to be created for FUD. 

+5%

Quote from: AdamBLevine on July 31, 2014, 07:05:21 PM
Guys, I didn't say any of this was bad or evil.  I asked if Invictus had a policy because I was not aware of it, and it seems like their employees, their angelshare funds, and their founders investments probably are a large proportion of the total out there.

I also did not say my guess was accurate, that's why I said it was a guess and asked for clarification which did not come.  Instead I got the forum defense squad calling me out for... what?  Darn me for trying to get clarity on a clearly totally obscure and impactful issue.

I didn't even vote lol

The proper thing would have been to ask what percentage does I3 hold before starting out with your widely off base "guess".  Perhaps a simple question asking for help with the calculations involved or what % of PTS I3 had at the Feb 28 snapshot.  Instead you throw out a number that isn't even feasible and appears to be created for FUD.  That is the perception of people, like you have pointed out with this POS vs POW thing.  Perceptions !

Quote from: toast on July 31, 2014, 05:02:15 PM

Quote from: AdamBLevine on July 31, 2014, 03:18:01 PM
Because they have been accepting PTS for AGS and buying AGS with their own funds since day one.  Their employees are not only paid in PTS but are known to reinvest them in AGS.

The token is their primary monetization, I don't have specific information but doing some calculations in my head I think that's the ballpark, which is why I'm asking.

Don't make it sound like my own AGS are somehow I3's - same goes for anyone else getting paid by I3. My *personal* policy will be, "whatever I feel like".

As far as I understand I3 does not own any AGS, only PTS, and so the only BTSX they own is from the ~250k PTS, or about 10%.

I voted "Commit to not selling until the market is deeper".

I'm not making it sound like that, but you've got to admit that your interests are aligned with Invictus and they are large holders.  I consider "they" to be Larimer & Co, and while they only have 5% of the BTsx through AGS, they're personally heavily invested in the token as well.

With LTBc I am a large holder, I started with like 2% of the money supply personally in my posession for work I'd done the prior year and managing the distribution of another 50%, so I voluntarily stated that I would not sell any LTBc from my personal holdings until the market is substantially deeper than these early days.

Nobody really cared that I did it, but I thought it was important so that people wouldn't feel like I could flood the market at any moment.  It's not about what technically is possible, its just a question of what standards Invictus wants to set if any.  Not having a policy is also a policy, I just would like to understand it instead of guessing.

Guys, I didn't say any of this was bad or evil.  I asked if Invictus had a policy because I was not aware of it, and it seems like their employees, their angelshare funds, and their founders investments probably are a large proportion of the total out there.

I also did not say my guess was accurate, that's why I said it was a guess and asked for clarification which did not come.  Instead I got the forum defense squad calling me out for... what?  Darn me for trying to get clarity on a clearly totally obscure and impactful issue.

I didn't even vote lol

100%agree with you. bm and stan both gained very good reputation in Chinese community. They are honest and smart. Our community trust them more than mr li and B.shen.

Quote from: toast on July 31, 2014, 05:02:15 PM

Quote from: AdamBLevine on July 31, 2014, 03:18:01 PM
Because they have been accepting PTS for AGS and buying AGS with their own funds since day one.  Their employees are not only paid in PTS but are known to reinvest them in AGS.

The token is their primary monetization, I don't have specific information but doing some calculations in my head I think that's the ballpark, which is why I'm asking.

Don't make it sound like my own AGS are somehow I3's - same goes for anyone else getting paid by I3. My *personal* policy will be, "whatever I feel like".

As far as I understand I3 does not own any AGS, only PTS, and so the only BTSX they own is from the ~250k PTS, or about 10%.

I voted "Commit to not selling until the market is deeper".

Quote from: liondani on July 31, 2014, 06:36:02 PM
nice try!  I bet you still want to buy BTSX @ 0.00001 BTC.  Well...  good luck with that!

Come ooooon, dani.

He is having a dog party of his own, he does not need no BTSXs.

Quote from: jae208 on July 31, 2014, 06:26:26 PM
What I thought was that PTS and BTC that was donated was for the development of the industry. I didn't think their share of BitsharesX was also for that though.

Is BitsharesX funds really for development of industry or just profit for them? I'm not talking about the funds that were paid to I3 employees but those that are still in control of I3 exclusively. 
Frankly I'm fine with it being profit just would like clarification.

I have no say so or insider knowledge, but I am pretty sure it is all meant to further develop bitshares.  Right now that means Bitshares X.  If Bitshares X takes off, then that means more funds to further development.  I think DanNStan are having more fun working on this than dreaming about $$.  If it works out, there will be plenty of opportunities for them in the future.  (Not to say that it hasn't been stressful for Dan in the past...)

Thats why this is so damn fun to be involved with.  Bitshares  transcends the typical money motivation, but there will be opportunities for that too.

Quote from: jae208 on July 31, 2014, 06:26:26 PM
What I thought was that PTS and BTC that was donated was for the development of the industry. I didn't think their share of BitsharesX was also for that though.

Is BitsharesX funds really for development of industry or just profit for them? I'm not talking about the funds that were paid to I3 employees but those that are still in control of I3 exclusively. 
Frankly I'm fine with it being profit just would like clarification.

So you have not read Stan's posts about the golden eggs that hatched producing new DACs? And how said DACs  grow up and lay golden eggs of their own?

nice try!  I bet you still want to buy BTSX @ 0.00001 BTC.  Well...  good luck with that!

What I thought was that PTS and BTC that was donated was for the development of the industry. I didn't think their share of BitsharesX was also for that though.

Is BitsharesX funds really for development of industry or just profit for them? I'm not talking about the funds that were paid to I3 employees but those that are still in control of I3 exclusively. 
Frankly I'm fine with it being profit just would like clarification.

sry adam, this time you failed.

40% for invictus is much to high and to include the personal investment is not right.

at the time of the snapshot they holded about 10-15% of the pts supply and should now hold about of 7- 10 % of the total btsx supply.

if this post would be from a person from I3 you would shout "prove it and don't throw numbers without facts around" so please make the good question in a good way

1. how much btsx holds I3 now?
2. what are the plans in the next 12 months for this holdings?
3. will the community have a say, what to do with the funds?

Quote from: Empirical1 on July 31, 2014, 05:19:54 PM

My personal concern is that some of the talented developers might not have enough equity.

Adam's biggest concern on the other hand is that he is not being paid enough, for all the baseless accusations and made up arguments against I3 he can come up with...

Quote from: AdamBLevine on July 31, 2014, 03:18:01 PM

Quote from: Empirical1 on July 31, 2014, 03:06:36 PM

Quote from: AdamBLevine on July 31, 2014, 03:01:36 PM
Am I right in thinking you control more than 40% of the total supply?

What specific information makes you think they control more than 40%?

Because they have been accepting PTS for AGS and buying AGS with their own funds since day one.  Their employees are not only paid in PTS but are known to reinvest them in AGS.

The token is their primary monetization, I don't have specific information but doing some calculations in my head I think that's the ballpark, which is why I'm asking.

OK, so you haven't looked at the PTS & BTC transaction logs from AGS?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydFZ3bVVWT0o1OUwzXzdESHFBY0FkUWc&usp=sharing#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydDFnQmlkTVlkbWpubnJBbzR2UG5ucnc&usp=sharing#gid=0

You can see very little funds were taken from AGS through PTS & BTC during the time BTSX was allocated. (Up till 28/02/2014) 

Obviously anybody can do what they want with their payments and I really hope they invested them back in AGS but the amount they can own via that process you are suggesting seems incredibly limited unless I'm missing something.

My personal concern is that some of the talented developers might not have enough equity. (Even taking into account the 10% Toast references above.)